Parents convicted of murder for using faith-healing on unconscious 11 year old daughter.

Bruno@MT

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
3,399
Reaction score
73
But it's their belief system that made them not seek medical care for the child. Should we attack something else when the plain cause of it is their irrational belief? They didn't take the kid to the doctor because they thought their god would cure the child if they prayed, and that's why I'm attacking their religion.

Technically, it's the their interpretation of that belief system. The bible is similar to the US constitution: it's all about interpretation.

The vast majority of christians would have sought medical help AND prayed. These nuts eschew medical help in favor of faith healing. It is their interpretation of the bible that caused their kid to die.
 

Bruno@MT

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
3,399
Reaction score
73
Judaism has rules for the disposal of anything that has the Names of G-d written on them. To prevent the accidental destruction of non-sacred textxs, we ae in the habit of writting G-d with an hyphen. Although there has been serious debates as to whether a computer display forms a permanent wtriting or not, and the usual consensus is that it does not, it is a habit that we find hard to break.

In understand the argument, but by the same token, one could argue that if you mean 'God' when you write 'G-d', then they are the same thing and should be treated the same.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,135
Reaction score
4,503
Location
England
In understand the argument, but by the same token, one could argue that if you mean 'God' when you write 'G-d', then they are the same thing and should be treated the same.

It's not the meaning, it's the actual word, the letters that spell out the name that mustn't be destroyed.
 
OP
A

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,560
Reaction score
435
Location
Terre Haute, IN
Therefore....I think the Neumanns were within the law until Kara died. I also think the conviction is sound.

I think its due to this very high bar (death) that faith-healing practices have been able to enjoy certain protections under the law.

Sounds like it's a somewhat conflicting set of rules but ultimately a "no harm, no foul" system. Still, if your analysis is correct, I wonder what would happen if a child was needlessly paralyzed from the neck down, say, because of the parents using faith healing over medicine?
 

Omar B

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
3,687
Reaction score
84
Location
Queens, NY. Fort Lauderdale, FL
Technically, it's the their interpretation of that belief system. The bible is similar to the US constitution: it's all about interpretation.

The vast majority of christians would have sought medical help AND prayed. These nuts eschew medical help in favor of faith healing. It is their interpretation of the bible that caused their kid to die.

Doesn't change the fact that their flavor of belief led them to deny their child care. I didn't say all christians are as such, but they are and they didn't treat the child because of their belifes. Other christians had nothing to do with it.
 

Ken Morgan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
128
Location
Guelph
What would have happened if the situation was a little bit different?

If the child had an ear infection, for arguments sake, and the parents did the same thing, and the child lost hearing in that ear, would they be held criminally negligent? I doubt it.

I’m sure there are many other parents who use prayer, Voodoo, dandelion root and all other sorts of bizarre “cures” on their children, (and themselves), with potential criminal consequences.

Several hundred years ago in our culture, and in some parts of the world today, what they did was and is acceptable. Believe in whatever god, gods, spirts, fairies you want, but never let those superstitions get in the way of saving a persons life.
 
Last edited:

celtic_crippler

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
137
Location
Airstrip One
I'm with Omar on this one. I'm all for people's individual liberty, but when it's killing children, then it's time for some intervention.

Individual liberty has stops when "it" brings unwanted or undue harm to another.

Letting your child die through negligence while using the excuse of religeous beliefs oversteps the bounds of individual liberty.
 

thardey

Master Black Belt
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,274
Reaction score
94
Location
Southern Oregon
Just, WOW!

How ironic is it that some profess how self-righteous others are while condeming a culture that they don't even know. To the point of calling them lazy, and that they blame people's problems on their lack of faith. You know nothing about these particular people, and yet apparently you know all about their personal beliefs. Amazing....

Christianity isn't limited to a person's set of personal beliefs. You can't simply claim the mantle of "Christianity" then believe whatever you want to, then cry "foul" when other Christians judge you.

In 1 Corinthians it makes it clear that Christians should exercise judgement over one another, over those who identify themselves with Christianity. Not judgement in the sense of "I judge you to hell" or "I judge you to not really be a Christian" but judgement in the sense of rightly dividing what actions are appropriate within the community, and what actions are appropriate within the doctrinal teaching.

You can have all the personal beliefs you want, but when you claim that you performed certain actions because of your belief in Christianity, then you are no longer representing your personal beliefs, but the beliefs of a large group of people, and are opening yourself up to "judgement" (not condemnation) about your actions. It becomes a "communal" belief at that point, and is accountable to the community.

It's not a legal principle, nor a "moral" one, but it is a part of the basic doctrines of Christianity, and how the Christian church is built. Similar to the rules of Judaism about the spelling of God, it's within their system, and it makes no real sense to apply the rules of other systems to determine its value. I don't believe that the Jewish people on this board are offended by my spelling of God, because they know that I'm not Jewish, and don't follow their spelling rules.

(For those that care, check out some of the grammar rules about writitng modern Hebrew -- the letters that are often transilterated "Y" "H" and "W" -- those used in the spelling of the personal name of God -- have special spelling rules applied to them, as well as the words they are used in. Just omitting the "O" in God is just the tip of the iceberg.)

As far as my personal commentary on the situation -- yes, I do believe that these beliefs are interpreted by, and find their continued acceptance in the fundamentally lazy theology that enables people to avoid personal responsibility. When these beliefs are blindly followed, they lead to situations such as the one in question. I'm not saying that the parents did not take their children to the doctor because they were lazy -- that would make no sense.

I am saying that people who are spiritually, and morally lazy are the architects of this kind of belief system, of which this family is a victim.

I'm "judging" the theology behind the rationale. And if you say that I have no place to judge such a thing, then you should know that I have been appointed to a place in leadership within Christianity where people request my judgement on theology, and consider me qualified to give it.

So, while according to some principles of American social doctrine, I do not have a right to weigh in on the personal beliefs of others, within the doctrines of Christianity, I do. In fact, I am complelled to.


And for those of you that have your version of Christianity, I applaud your confidence in your beliefs, I really do. But, even though I may believe in a God (no hyphenated "O" by the way, which I really don't understand), I find it arrogant and presumptuous that you feel that you completely understand the will of God. How do you know that God would not feel that putting medicine before God is a sin? Even if I agree with you, at least I am comfortable in the fact that there is no possible way that I could understand a being as omnipotent as God, and may possibly be wrong in my belief. And having that understanding, still maintain my belief in the righteousness of my position, but not be arrogant enough that it MUST be the right way.

I really believe that rather that most of you have an emotional investment in the things that you believe, rather then understanding how you think, or what psychiatry would call, meta-cognition, the understanding of how you think. I think that if you would pay more attention to that, you would make more coherent arumenatations.

It's not an issue of determining the will of God in this particular circumstance, it's an issue of examining whether the actions of these people are in line with the will of God as expressed in the Bible they claim to follow. Was this action done with love? Was it done with responsiblity? Was this done with maturity, or immaturity? Did this cause a child of God to stumble? Was this done out of a personal faith in the goodness of God, or was it done out of the misplaced idea of faith in the power of belief alone?

It is by the "fruit" of actions that we should examine them in the light of scripture. The fruit of this action is that a little child needlessly died. The circumstances leading up to this "bad fuit" needs to be examined, brought into the open, and avoided in the future.

If it was "God's will" that the child should die (for reasons which it is out of my authority to know) then taking her to the doctor would not have circumvented that will. She would have died anyway.

If these people were claiming their actions were justified because of their faith in another religion, then I would have nothing to say. But because they justify their actions through claiming the covering of our shared religion, then I have a right to comment on their interpretation of that system.
 

Ken Morgan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
128
Location
Guelph
Christianity isn't limited to a person's set of personal beliefs. You can't simply claim the mantle of "Christianity" then believe whatever you want to, then cry "foul" when other Christians judge you.

In 1 Corinthians it makes it clear that Christians should exercise judgement over one another, over those who identify themselves with Christianity. Not judgement in the sense of "I judge you to hell" or "I judge you to not really be a Christian" but judgement in the sense of rightly dividing what actions are appropriate within the community, and what actions are appropriate within the doctrinal teaching.

You can have all the personal beliefs you want, but when you claim that you performed certain actions because of your belief in Christianity, then you are no longer representing your personal beliefs, but the beliefs of a large group of people, and are opening yourself up to "judgement" (not condemnation) about your actions. It becomes a "communal" belief at that point, and is accountable to the community.

It's not a legal principle, nor a "moral" one, but it is a part of the basic doctrines of Christianity, and how the Christian church is built. Similar to the rules of Judaism about the spelling of God, it's within their system, and it makes no real sense to apply the rules of other systems to determine its value. I don't believe that the Jewish people on this board are offended by my spelling of God, because they know that I'm not Jewish, and don't follow their spelling rules.

(For those that care, check out some of the grammar rules about writitng modern Hebrew -- the letters that are often transilterated "Y" "H" and "W" -- those used in the spelling of the personal name of God -- have special spelling rules applied to them, as well as the words they are used in. Just omitting the "O" in God is just the tip of the iceberg.)

As far as my personal commentary on the situation -- yes, I do believe that these beliefs are interpreted by, and find their continued acceptance in the fundamentally lazy theology that enables people to avoid personal responsibility. When these beliefs are blindly followed, they lead to situations such as the one in question. I'm not saying that the parents did not take their children to the doctor because they were lazy -- that would make no sense.

I am saying that people who are spiritually, and morally lazy are the architects of this kind of belief system, of which this family is a victim.

I'm "judging" the theology behind the rationale. And if you say that I have no place to judge such a thing, then you should know that I have been appointed to a place in leadership within Christianity where people request my judgement on theology, and consider me qualified to give it.

So, while according to some principles of American social doctrine, I do not have a right to weigh in on the personal beliefs of others, within the doctrines of Christianity, I do. In fact, I am complelled to.




It's not an issue of determining the will of God in this particular circumstance, it's an issue of examining whether the actions of these people are in line with the will of God as expressed in the Bible they claim to follow. Was this action done with love? Was it done with responsiblity? Was this done with maturity, or immaturity? Did this cause a child of God to stumble? Was this done out of a personal faith in the goodness of God, or was it done out of the misplaced idea of faith in the power of belief alone?

It is by the "fruit" of actions that we should examine them in the light of scripture. The fruit of this action is that a little child needlessly died. The circumstances leading up to this "bad fuit" needs to be examined, brought into the open, and avoided in the future.

If it was "God's will" that the child should die (for reasons which it is out of my authority to know) then taking her to the doctor would not have circumvented that will. She would have died anyway.

If these people were claiming their actions were justified because of their faith in another religion, then I would have nothing to say. But because they justify their actions through claiming the covering of our shared religion, then I have a right to comment on their interpretation of that system.


Rant….

So, as a christian expert, appointed to your position by other christain experts, how can you give your opinion on one lone branch of the tree and proclaim it to be “wrong”?

Christianity is an umbrella that has many interpretations encompassing it of what being a christian is truly about. Do you speak for the RC’s? The eastern Orthodox? Oriental Orthodox? The various multiple sub branches of the Protestant movement? Do you have permission from all these groups to proclaim what’s right and wrong within the family of the christain movement in the United States? Or do you speak solely for your own branch?

Whose interpretation of the bible are you using? I’m sure you can find many multiple interpretations, whose is correct? Why don’t we follow the rules of slavery being okay and stoning to death people anymore? There were hundreds of original commandments, why are we only following ten?

Do you really think these people are an isolated case?

Why is it when something terrible happens, religious people suddenly stand up and proclaim, “That’s not my version of XYZ, they have it wrong. It’s really not like that.”

No, the fruit of their actions should not be examined through another’s interpretation of the bible, the fruit of their action should be examined by the judicial system, putting away these nut bars for a very long time.
 

thardey

Master Black Belt
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,274
Reaction score
94
Location
Southern Oregon
Rant….

So, as a christian expert, appointed to your position by other christain experts, how can you give your opinion on one lone branch of the tree and proclaim it to be “wrong”?

I call it as I see it. If you prefer, I could preface every single thought with "IMHO," but at the core, that's all anyone is doing.

There are some things that other Christians believe that don't bother me if we disagree. There are some things that other Christians believe that I look at and say "it doesn't work" perhaps because I've tried it, perhaps because I've seen the results of the theology. In this case, I've tried it -- not to the point of another's death, thank God, but people tried to teach me that I don't have to take personal responsibility for my actions because everything is "up to God" and pre-ordained.

If we're in the Self-Defense forum, and someone recommends punching with thier thumb inside their fist, because their branch of karate says so, I can say, with fair certainty that no, I tried that -- I have to disagree, it's dangerous, and should be avoided.

I don't see any teaching in the Bible that says that taking your child to the doctor is a sin. I do see where, in Christian tradition, that the idea of attempting to treat a disease is seen as fighting against God. During the Black Plague, the Church condemned it as God's punishment.

As Albert Camus pointed out in his book "The Plague" if you agree that the disease is from God, then you can't fight the disease without fighting God, which sets you up as an enemy of God. But this is based on a bad set of Theology that still has survived to this day.

Christianity is an umbrella that has many interpretations encompassing it of what being a christian is truly about. Do you speak for the RC’s? The eastern Orthodox? Oriental Orthodox? The various multiple sub branches of the Protestant movement? Do you have permission from all these groups to proclaim what’s right and wrong within the family of the christain movement in the United States? Or do you speak solely for your own branch?

Do I need permission to voice an opinion? I speak solely for myself. Those who ask for my interpretation do so because they learn from what I say, and they have learned to respect it. I don't claim to be an "expert" but I am not, as others claimed, ignorant of Christianity, and passing judgement in my ignorance.

Whose interpretation of the bible are you using? I’m sure you can find many multiple interpretations, whose is correct? Why don’t we follow the rules of slavery being okay and stoning to death people anymore? There were hundreds of original commandments, why are we only following ten?

I can only follow my own interpretation of the Bible. To follow anyone else's (IMHO) is lazy. However, that also means that I learn from others, but I take their teachings and interpretations, and make them my own, or reject them.

Do you really think these people are an isolated case?

Nope, how do you think I formed an opinion on their theology? I know many people like this, and I've seen the damage caused by this sort of theological irresponsibility. It's ugly, and it is one of the reasons that I understand why people turn away from religion in general. The fundamental arguments behind the sort of thinking that caused this tragedy lead to other, horrible actions in the name of religion. I've personally seen families torn apart because of this type of thinking, and I refuse to condone or defend it.

Why is it when something terrible happens, religious people suddenly stand up and proclaim, “That’s not my version of XYZ, they have it wrong. It’s really not like that.”

It's the same reason Muslims condemn Jihadist terror attacks. It's the same reason Jews fight against various forms of anti-semitism.

Because if other Christians say nothing, people will begin to believe that this sort of behavior is a core belief of Christianity. It is not. I am a Christian, and I refuse to be asssociated with this belief.

Because if a wide group of people allow themselves to be caricatured, they lose some of their identity, and it makes them easier to be villified.

Because it is in the indiviual's right to stand up and say "that's not me!" that allows whole groups of people to avoid condemnation for actions of a few.

Because people remember the worst of situations like this, and forget the good, and need to be reminded that this isn't standard.

No, the fruit of their actions should not be examined through another’s interpretation of the bible, the fruit of their action should be examined by the judicial system, putting away these nut bars for a very long time.

We're talking about a different type of judgement. Yes, the judicial system is the proper place for judging punishment, and whether it is manslaughter, murder, etc.

I'm talking about judgment as far as whether this is a type, or interpretation of belief that should be encouraged or discouraged. Is it "judged" to have a positive outcome, or a negative one. Is it that they did the right thing, but it came out wrong? Or did they do the wrong thing based on bad teaching?

If you believe that they are "nut bars" and should be put away, why are you defending them? Or is it that you have a right to judge them based on the law, but I don't have a right to judge them based on religion?
 

5-0 Kenpo

Master of Arts
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
60
Christianity isn't limited to a person's set of personal beliefs. You can't simply claim the mantle of "Christianity" then believe whatever you want to, then cry "foul" when other Christians judge you.

In 1 Corinthians it makes it clear that Christians should exercise judgement over one another, over those who identify themselves with Christianity. Not judgement in the sense of "I judge you to hell" or "I judge you to not really be a Christian" but judgement in the sense of rightly dividing what actions are appropriate within the community, and what actions are appropriate within the doctrinal teaching.

You can have all the personal beliefs you want, but when you claim that you performed certain actions because of your belief in Christianity, then you are no longer representing your personal beliefs, but the beliefs of a large group of people, and are opening yourself up to "judgement" (not condemnation) about your actions. It becomes a "communal" belief at that point, and is accountable to the community.

It's not a legal principle, nor a "moral" one, but it is a part of the basic doctrines of Christianity, and how the Christian church is built. Similar to the rules of Judaism about the spelling of God, it's within their system, and it makes no real sense to apply the rules of other systems to determine its value. I don't believe that the Jewish people on this board are offended by my spelling of God, because they know that I'm not Jewish, and don't follow their spelling rules.

(For those that care, check out some of the grammar rules about writitng modern Hebrew -- the letters that are often transilterated "Y" "H" and "W" -- those used in the spelling of the personal name of God -- have special spelling rules applied to them, as well as the words they are used in. Just omitting the "O" in God is just the tip of the iceberg.)

As far as my personal commentary on the situation -- yes, I do believe that these beliefs are interpreted by, and find their continued acceptance in the fundamentally lazy theology that enables people to avoid personal responsibility. When these beliefs are blindly followed, they lead to situations such as the one in question. I'm not saying that the parents did not take their children to the doctor because they were lazy -- that would make no sense.

I am saying that people who are spiritually, and morally lazy are the architects of this kind of belief system, of which this family is a victim.

I'm "judging" the theology behind the rationale. And if you say that I have no place to judge such a thing, then you should know that I have been appointed to a place in leadership within Christianity where people request my judgement on theology, and consider me qualified to give it.

So, while according to some principles of American social doctrine, I do not have a right to weigh in on the personal beliefs of others, within the doctrines of Christianity, I do. In fact, I am complelled to.

You have a very cogent position, although I do disagree with some of your positions, as stated.

It is not that I have a problem with judgements, per se. What I was trying to point out, apparently unsuccessfully, is that a lot of people here form a philosophy, but then only apply it to positions that suit their purpose, rather then appy it across the board. For instance, there are those that argue that they see no problem with an 8 year old girl being forced to marry a 40(?) year old man. Why? Because that is their culture. They see no harm to such a union. But when it comes to these individual's culture, then stand by. I will grant that the consequences of one may be more clear cut then another, but that still does not negate the argument.

The point is that I was trying to make is that people are making inconsistent arguments, or, if nothing else, failing to flesh out their positions in debate. Another example is this: When it comes to abortion, there are those who say that it is a woman's right to do with their body what they want. That is the position. But when it comes to that same woman using crack cocaine, somehow their position no longer applies. But yet somehow they still maintain that position, but add caveats to it. This, to me, is disingenuous.


It's not an issue of determining the will of God in this particular circumstance, it's an issue of examining whether the actions of these people are in line with the will of God as expressed in the Bible they claim to follow. Was this action done with love? Was it done with responsiblity? Was this done with maturity, or immaturity? Did this cause a child of God to stumble? Was this done out of a personal faith in the goodness of God, or was it done out of the misplaced idea of faith in the power of belief alone?

It is by the "fruit" of actions that we should examine them in the light of scripture. The fruit of this action is that a little child needlessly died. The circumstances leading up to this "bad fuit" needs to be examined, brought into the open, and avoided in the future.

I do believe that you have the right to judge it based on you understanding of your shared religion. As I said, I have no problem with that. However, I do take issue with examining things based on the "fruit". For example, if I kill someone, the "fruit" is that they are dead. The difference is did I do it with the intent to save mine or another's life, or was it malicious. If I just look at the "fruit" of such action, I ignore process, which is just as important for understanding the totality of the circumstances as is the outcome.



If it was "God's will" that the child should die (for reasons which it is out of my authority to know) then taking her to the doctor would not have circumvented that will. She would have died anyway.

I have nothing to disagree with here.

[/quote]
If these people were claiming their actions were justified because of their faith in another religion, then I would have nothing to say. But because they justify their actions through claiming the covering of our shared religion, then I have a right to comment on their interpretation of that system.[/quote]


I would disagree that you would have no basis to make a judgement. You have every right to make a judgement based on your position. Although, admittedly, you are not in a position to judge the rightness or wrongness or an action based on a religion/culture other then your own.


When it comes to judgement, however, someone brought up the point that they feel that these people were generally self-righteous. My position is that they know nothing about these people. They have no idea as to these peoples dispositions, how they treat others, or what they believe. In fact, the condesension was to the point that they even disparage all people who believe in, for instance, Christianity. After all, how can we expect rational thought out of people who believe that a man walked on water. In fact, it seems to me that to them, rationality is the exception rather then the norm for religious people. This is to judge a whole class of people based on their experience with an individual, whom they may only know from a news article.

For instance, if I see a Black man commit one crime once, but then I turn on the television and see/hear gangsta rap music/videos, Black women shaking thier asses in videos, I might walk away with the idea that all black people are criminals and hussies. But does that image represent all Black people. And that is the type of judgement that I condem here. To me, I see no difference.
 

Omar B

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
3,687
Reaction score
84
Location
Queens, NY. Fort Lauderdale, FL
I've got a problem with this whole "god's will" thing being thrown about around here. Am I to understand that god wanted this child to die simply because she ended up dead from her parent's inaction? By that argument you can argue anything, rape, murder, child molestation, all to be god's will. If that's his will I'm glad I don't bend a knee to those beliefs.

How do you know god's will anyways, does he call you up? Does it come to you through some divine revelation? Is anything that happens construed as god's will?
 

thardey

Master Black Belt
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,274
Reaction score
94
Location
Southern Oregon
You have a very cogent position, although I do disagree with some of your positions, as stated.

It is not that I have a problem with judgements, per se. What I was trying to point out, apparently unsuccessfully, is that a lot of people here form a philosophy, but then only apply it to positions that suit their purpose, rather then appy it across the board. [snipped] And that is the type of judgement that I condem here. To me, I see no difference.

Can't disagree with most of that! I see what you are saying, and point well taken.
:asian:
 

Ken Morgan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
128
Location
Guelph
I call it as I see it. If you prefer, I could preface every single thought with "IMHO," but at the core, that's all anyone is doing.

There are some things that other Christians believe that don't bother me if we disagree. There are some things that other Christians believe that I look at and say "it doesn't work" perhaps because I've tried it, perhaps because I've seen the results of the theology. In this case, I've tried it -- not to the point of another's death, thank God, but people tried to teach me that I don't have to take personal responsibility for my actions because everything is "up to God" and pre-ordained.

If we're in the Self-Defense forum, and someone recommends punching with thier thumb inside their fist, because their branch of karate says so, I can say, with fair certainty that no, I tried that -- I have to disagree, it's dangerous, and should be avoided.

I don't see any teaching in the Bible that says that taking your child to the doctor is a sin. I do see where, in Christian tradition, that the idea of attempting to treat a disease is seen as fighting against God. During the Black Plague, the Church condemned it as God's punishment.

As Albert Camus pointed out in his book "The Plague" if you agree that the disease is from God, then you can't fight the disease without fighting God, which sets you up as an enemy of God. But this is based on a bad set of Theology that still has survived to this day.



Do I need permission to voice an opinion? I speak solely for myself. Those who ask for my interpretation do so because they learn from what I say, and they have learned to respect it. I don't claim to be an "expert" but I am not, as others claimed, ignorant of Christianity, and passing judgement in my ignorance.



I can only follow my own interpretation of the Bible. To follow anyone else's (IMHO) is lazy. However, that also means that I learn from others, but I take their teachings and interpretations, and make them my own, or reject them.



Nope, how do you think I formed an opinion on their theology? I know many people like this, and I've seen the damage caused by this sort of theological irresponsibility. It's ugly, and it is one of the reasons that I understand why people turn away from religion in general. The fundamental arguments behind the sort of thinking that caused this tragedy lead to other, horrible actions in the name of religion. I've personally seen families torn apart because of this type of thinking, and I refuse to condone or defend it.



It's the same reason Muslims condemn Jihadist terror attacks. It's the same reason Jews fight against various forms of anti-semitism.

Because if other Christians say nothing, people will begin to believe that this sort of behavior is a core belief of Christianity. It is not. I am a Christian, and I refuse to be asssociated with this belief.

Because if a wide group of people allow themselves to be caricatured, they lose some of their identity, and it makes them easier to be villified.

Because it is in the indiviual's right to stand up and say "that's not me!" that allows whole groups of people to avoid condemnation for actions of a few.

Because people remember the worst of situations like this, and forget the good, and need to be reminded that this isn't standard.



We're talking about a different type of judgement. Yes, the judicial system is the proper place for judging punishment, and whether it is manslaughter, murder, etc.

I'm talking about judgment as far as whether this is a type, or interpretation of belief that should be encouraged or discouraged. Is it "judged" to have a positive outcome, or a negative one. Is it that they did the right thing, but it came out wrong? Or did they do the wrong thing based on bad teaching?

If you believe that they are "nut bars" and should be put away, why are you defending them? Or is it that you have a right to judge them based on the law, but I don't have a right to judge them based on religion?

Actually reread my posts on this subject if you will, I've never defended them or their actions.

Last time I looked, the multitude of christain religions did not have a consensus on what were acceptable interpretations of the compilation of stories and how they relate to guiding our lives. How are you so certain that your particular interpretation of christianity is the correct one?
 

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
540
Location
NH
It is not that I have a problem with judgements, per se. What I was trying to point out, apparently unsuccessfully, is that a lot of people here form a philosophy, but then only apply it to positions that suit their purpose, rather then appy it across the board. For instance, there are those that argue that they see no problem with an 8 year old girl being forced to marry a 40(?) year old man. Why? Because that is their culture. They see no harm to such a union. But when it comes to these individual's culture, then stand by. I will grant that the consequences of one may be more clear cut then another, but that still does not negate the argument.

However, that uses "culture" in very different scopes. One shows a practice that has been part of the Muslim world for as long as there has been a Muslim world (if not longer). The other is a self-styled practitioner that does not adhere to an organized sect. Had the Neumanns been Christian Scientists, they may have been afforded more protection under the law.

The undercurrent that I am reading in your post seems to be an outcry over how it is somehow OK to bash Christians (but not other faiths). However, this case deals with a practice that is not prototypically Christian. Other than the small Protestant sect of Christian Scientists, there are no significant branches of Christianity that eschew medical treatment, especially allopathic (Western) medicine, in lieu of faith healing.
 
OP
A

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,560
Reaction score
435
Location
Terre Haute, IN
However, that uses "culture" in very different scopes.

Yup. It's a view that tries to make things simpler than they are, as in comparing abortion to drug abuse. One can start from the same core principles and reach different conclusions in different situations. In particular, with drug abuse there are larger societal issues and those also come into play--and perhaps conflict--with other principles. Real life is messy, and politics is the art of compromise.

Other than the small Protestant sect of Christian Scientists, there are no significant branches of Christianity that eschew medical treatment, especially allopathic (Western) medicine, in lieu of faith healing.
There may be no other major branches (but don't forget the Jehovah's Witnesses, who do refuse some modern medicine, though not because of a preference for faith healing), but that doesn't mean there aren't a fair number of small one-church-only sects or individual Christians who would do the like.
 

5-0 Kenpo

Master of Arts
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
60
However, that uses "culture" in very different scopes. One shows a practice that has been part of the Muslim world for as long as there has been a Muslim world (if not longer). The other is a self-styled practitioner that does not adhere to an organized sect. Had the Neumanns been Christian Scientists, they may have been afforded more protection under the law.

The undercurrent that I am reading in your post seems to be an outcry over how it is somehow OK to bash Christians (but not other faiths). However, this case deals with a practice that is not prototypically Christian. Other than the small Protestant sect of Christian Scientists, there are no significant branches of Christianity that eschew medical treatment, especially allopathic (Western) medicine, in lieu of faith healing.

Again, you're missing the point. It is not about what those specific people believe. Nor, in fact, the legality of what they did.

It is the discrepency between the philosophy in what people say in one instance, versus that same philosophy applying in another circumstance. And this is regardless of whether it has occurred for a long time. Those same people who uphold it would decry in other circumstancesy the logical fallacy of an appeal to tradition. Look at the whole gay marriage debate that has waged here as an example.

And even still, people also state that people should not be force to conform to anothers culture/tradition/religion. By forcing these people to obtain conventional medical attention from a doctor, against their religious beliefs, we are forcing them to go against what they percieve are the tenets of their religion. Make all the reasons that you want, it goes against other philosophies that they have espoused in other threads.
 
OP
A

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,560
Reaction score
435
Location
Terre Haute, IN
By forcing these people to obtain conventional medical attention from a doctor, against their religious beliefs, we are forcing them to go against what they percieve are the tenets of their religion. Make all the reasons that you want, it goes against other philosophies that they have espoused in other threads.

But the big difference here is between someone making such a decision on their own behalf, and on behalf of someone for whom they are the guardian. Did the child want to die rather than go to a hospital? Those parents can fight their own cancers with laetrile if they want, for all I care--but making the decision to pray only for an unconscious 11 year old child for whom they were responsible is different. If your religious beliefs allow you to kill your own children through inattention (or starvation or exposure on a mountainside or whatever), then I've got a problem with that. That's no longer a self-determination issue.

Also, as noted above, had it worked they would have faced no problems--indeed, who would have known? They made a bad choice--evidence that they did use a reasonable standard of care w.r.t. the child.

When God starts healing broken arms at the same rate that orthopedists do, or internal bleeding as well as a general surgeon, then we can reconsider the matter. Until then, it's really about the concept of an age of majority, and the care due a minor who is legally unable to obtain her own health insurance and too young to make informed decisions.
 
Top