Religious fanatic murders child and gets a slap on the hand

[Stego]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1738993' date='Mar 30 2009, 17.03']I think it should be legal for a Jehova's Witness to refuse blood transfusion for his/her child because the act violates his/her religious faith. This will often result in adverse health effects, and probably death, for the child. I'm okay with that. Children are victims of the circumstances of their birth all the time. Freedom to practice one's chosen religion is more important, imo, than the death of a few children. Now, if the practice is more popular and the fatality rate of children is much higher because of religious beliefs, then I might revise my view. As it stands, cases like this are rare and infrequent, when compared to the vast majority of religious households.[/quote]


Fuck religious freedom.

[Seventh Pup]

I think you have the freedom to deny your self medical care, food, water or shelter based on your religion. However you don't have the right to deny your children such thing because of something you believe. You don't have the right to sacrifice your children to your beliefs. Your children are reliant on you for support, and their right to the support trumps your right to religious rites.

[Lord O' Bones]

There should be an age of consent for religious belief.

[GSP]

Freedom of religion does not cover this, any way you stretch it. If some cult's fundamentals demanded sacrifice of one's first born, suffice it to say, the law would not stand by and shrug and I don't much see the difference here.

I know there have been Jehovah's witness refusal of blood transfusion for children cases in Canada where the government steps in and takes temporary custody of the child until his or her medical needs are dealt with, and I support that interference 100%.

IMHO religious freedom should be fully respected in all areas where there is no victim.

Also, I take the point that Nazism etc where not necessarily 'atheistic'. All I meant to point out was the non religious origin behind the actions mentioned. I was responding to the assumption that religion is the source of all ills, and was pointing to examples where religion was not the driving force and misspoke. Damn, you really can't be sloppy on this board.

[gryphon strike]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1738993' date='Mar 31 2009, 07.33']Re: EHK

I know we differ on this. I think it should be legal for a Jehova's Witness to refuse blood transfusion for his/her child because the act violates his/her religious faith. This will often result in adverse health effects, and probably death, for the child. I'm okay with that. Children are victims of the circumstances of their birth all the time. Freedom to practice one's chosen religion is more important, imo, than the death of a few children. Now, if the practice is more popular and the fatality rate of children is much higher because of religious beliefs, then I might revise my view. As it stands, cases like this are rare and infrequent, when compared to the vast majority of religious households.

Given that, as long as this person can show that saying "Amen" after the prayer for a meal is an integral and inviolate tenet in their faith, then yes, I think she should be acquitted of wrong-doing. In this case, I think it doesn't pass that threshold, because this is an act of punishment gone too far, and not a tenet of their faith. Sorry I was not clear that this particular case does not seem to qualify for my support for people to practice their religion. Then again, I don't know what the tenets of this odd version of Christianity is, so it may very well be that it is an inviolate tenet of the faith. Weirder things have happened in the name of religion and been accepted by the public.[/quote]
I believe the child in question was 16 months old, so I have to ask how any reasoning person can expect them to have any understanding of religious matters or how you can hold them culpable for not following a religious tenant. So for me that makes it a clear cut case of murder no religious cult can expect a child of that age to understand what they believe nor can they expect them to behave like saints.
This is something of a sore point for me since I find the brainwashing done to children by religions around the world to be extremely abhorrent. By all means teach them about your faith and also about the other faiths out there and let them choose a faith for themselves once they reach adulthood. Having for example a confirmation into a faith at age 7, as was common when I was that age, basically means you have no faith in your beliefs to be able to keep the child within the faith. To then punish a 16 month old child for your own failings is injustice to the extreme, thats why I say it is murder and they should suffer the full weight of the law of the land. If that means a death penalty then so be it.
For the record I am not in favour of the death penalty.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1738993' date='Mar 30 2009, 16.03']Re: EHK

I know we differ on this. I think it should be legal for a Jehova's Witness to refuse blood transfusion for his/her child because the act violates his/her religious faith. This will often result in adverse health effects, and probably death, for the child. I'm okay with that. Children are victims of the circumstances of their birth all the time.[b] Freedom to practice one's chosen religion is more important, imo, than the death of a few children.[/b] Now, if the practice is more popular and the fatality rate of children is much higher because of religious beliefs, then I might revise my view. As it stands, cases like this are rare and infrequent, when compared to the vast majority of religious households.

Given that, as long as this person can show that saying "Amen" after the prayer for a meal is an integral and inviolate tenet in their faith, then yes, I think she should be acquitted of wrong-doing. In this case, I think it doesn't pass that threshold, because this is an act of punishment gone too far, and not a tenet of their faith. Sorry I was not clear that this particular case does not seem to qualify for my support for people to practice their religion. Then again, I don't know what the tenets of this odd version of Christianity is, so it may very well be that it is an inviolate tenet of the faith. Weirder things have happened in the name of religion and been accepted by the public.[/quote]

I would disagree in just about the strongest terms possible. There is no religious belief that justifies the reckless killing of kids. It should be murder/negligent homicide (or whatever law applies to the circumstances) whether they have a religious excuse or not. The genuine nature of the religious belief is irrelevant. Kids are not consenting parties. They cannot give meaningful consent under the law or reality. Yes they are the victim of the circumstances they are born and raised in, but every civilized society places reasonable limits on the duties and responsibilities of parents and one that says 'You can't kill or needlessly endanger the lives of you kids just because god says so' absolutely falls within those lines. The well-being of the child trumps their religious freedom when it comes to matters of serious injury or death. Most western laws agree with this.

The natural extension of your position is to accept honor killings, stoning for adultery, forced genital mutilation, beatings and murder for not wearing the right cloths, the forced second class citizen status of women, etc, etc. Where do you draw the line on what society should accept? Or do you draw one?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='GSP' post='1739545' date='Mar 31 2009, 01.24']Also, I take the point that Nazism etc where not necessarily 'atheistic'. All I meant to point out was the non religious origin behind the actions mentioned. I was responding to the assumption that religion is the source of all ills, and was pointing to examples where religion was not the driving force and misspoke. Damn, you really can't be sloppy on this board.[/quote]


Yes, some evil is done without a religious justification or motivation. So what? It certainly didn't have an atheistic justification or motivation. And there are plenty of other crimes that do have religious J&M's. Far too many. Religion is dangerous because of the ease with which it trumps rational judgment, its ability to spread through every far corner of the world, and because of the unquestioning fervency it often inspires in the most devout. Other forces can inspire bad judgment, others spread far and wide, but nothing does it nearly as effectively as religion. It is a dangerous cancer that the world would be better off without.

[Shryke]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1739638' date='Mar 31 2009, 04.49']Yes, some evil is done without a religious justification or motivation. So what? It certainly didn't have an atheistic justification or motivation. And there are plenty of other crimes that do have religious J&M's. Far too many. Religion is dangerous because of the ease with which it trumps rational judgment, its ability to spread through every far corner of the world, and because of the unquestioning fervency it often inspires in the most devout. Other forces can inspire bad judgment, others spread far and wide, but nothing does it nearly as effectively as religion. It is a dangerous cancer that the world would be better off without.[/quote]

People are a dangerous cancer that the world would be better off without.

And it's strange you say all that, since most/all of the largest "evil" regimes in human history have been organized along non-religious lines.

[Nous]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1739678' date='Mar 31 2009, 06.26']People are a dangerous cancer that the world would be better off without.[/quote]
EHK is not using the welfare of Gaea as standard, but the welfare of people. You are evading the issue.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1739678' date='Mar 31 2009, 05.26']And it's strange you say all that, since most/all of the largest "evil" regimes in human history have been organized along non-religious lines.[/quote]

What are you getting at exactly? If all you're saying is that religion isn't necessary for evil, fair enough, I agree. But it does very often contribute to evil and its hardly necessary for justness or good. And what qualifies as being organized around religious lines? Does a monarch that claims Divine Right qualify? How about an emperor that claims to be a living god? And why is any of that remotely relevant? You don't need a theocracy for religion to play a prominent, repressive and oppressive role. Nor does the government need to be full of priests to call for religious wars or to give religious sanction for prospective wars.

If all you're getting at is the tried and true 'religion is just a tool exploited by evil groups/governments', well than what's your stance on handguns? Or nuclear weapons? Don't you think it'd be in most peoples interests to try to remove that most lethal and destructive of tools? Especially when its completely unnecessary in the modern world?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EHK,

[quote]What are you getting at exactly? If all you're saying is that religion isn't necessary for evil, fair enough, I agree. But it does very often contribute to evil and its hardly necessary for justness or good. And what qualifies as being organized around religious lines? Does a monarch that claims Divine Right qualify? How about an emperor that claims to be a living god? And why is any of that remotely relevant? You don't need a theocracy for religion to play a prominent, repressive and oppressive role. Nor does the government need to be full of priests to call for religious wars or to give religious sanction for prospective wars.[/quote]

Are you saying that if Religion is not present fewer "evil" things would happen to people?

[Zoë Sumra]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1739759' date='Mar 31 2009, 14.05']Are you saying that if Religion is not present fewer "evil" things would happen to people?[/quote]
^ am not EHK nor am trying to answer for him, but:

If religion were not present, people would still be dicks to other people. What offends me about it - as a liberal Christian - is the inherent duplicity involved in religious-based oppression, and the corruption of a basically positive ideal, and the fact that a religious basis for abuse permits individuals to avoid the temporal consequences of their actions.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Eloisa,

[quote name='Eloisa' post='1739796' date='Mar 31 2009, 09.55']^ am not EHK nor am trying to answer for him, but:

If religion were not present, people would still be dicks to other people. What offends me about it - as a liberal Christian - is the inherent duplicity involved in religious-based oppression, and the corruption of a basically positive ideal, and the fact that a religious basis for abuse permits individuals to avoid the temporal consequences of their actions.[/quote]

As a Classical-Liberal Christian I agree people shouldn't use faith to opprese others. If people don't believe that is absolutely their call. I agree that having a religious basis for abuse should not permit individuals to avoid temporal consequences for their actions. This woman and those who've sheltered her should be in prision.

I'm trying to find out if EHK believes that "but for" the existence of religion people would suffer fewer incidences of "evil"?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

What I've learned from this thread is that if you only count the bad things done in the name of religion and assume that the good things would have happened anyway, then religion looks pretty bad. Of course, the same thing could be said for almost any creed. But who's counting?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1739759' date='Mar 31 2009, 08.05']EHK,

Are you saying that if Religion is not present fewer "evil" things would happen to people?[/quote]

Yes. Even more so if you broaden the definition of evil to cover things that are simply bad. (like creationism retarding education) I don't think there's anything controversial about this or even much reason to doubt the conclusion. You're adding yet another means by which to divide people, one in which the divisions are very likely to be fertile grounds for suspicion and hostility. You're demanding absolute subservience to an indisputable truth with the kicker that the truth cannot be proven and can be just about anything you want it to be. With a devout population, which religion tends to inspire, 'God says' can be a license for just about anything. It is dangerous. More often than not in the modern day it is repressive. And it very often leads or contributes to some very bad shit. We'd all be MUCH better off without it. We wouldn't suddenly become a peace loving Utopia without it, but its a good start.

[Nous]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1739759' date='Mar 31 2009, 09.05']Are you saying that if Religion is not present fewer "evil" things would happen to people?[/quote]
I'll answer for myself. I regard religion as a negative force in the world, at root. But the absence of a negative is not the presence of a positive. If religion disappeared overnight, and people replaced it with drinking and episodes of Jerry Springer, I would not regard the world improved. There are many things that may spur people to evil (note the absence of scare quotes), and if one goes missing that is no guarantee that people do less evil; indeed, they may do more. The world would be a better place if people were more rational, but removing one major source of irrationality doesn't guarantee that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EHK,

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1739815' date='Mar 31 2009, 10.16']Yes. Even more so if you broaden the definition of evil to cover things that are simply bad. (like creationism retarding education) I don't think there's anything controversial about this or even much reason to doubt the conclusion. You're adding yet another means by which to divide people, one in which the divisions are very likely to be fertile grounds for suspicion and hostility. You're demanding absolute subservience to an indisputable truth with the kicker that the truth cannot be proven and can be just about anything you want it to be. With a devout population, which religion tends to inspire, 'God says' can be a license for just about anything. It is dangerous. More often than not in the modern day it is repressive. And it very often leads or contributes to some very bad shit. We'd all be MUCH better off without it. We wouldn't suddenly become a peace loving Utopia without it, but its a good start.[/quote]

Is it your position that Religion adds no good to the world or that the good it adds is outweighed by the bad it causes?

[Waldo Frey]

Reading the [url="http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=5565557&page=1"]related story[/url] shows that the cult members are in deep trouble. I would say, starting with Queen Antoinette just refuse her food and water. When she ceases to breathe, ask the rest of the members to pray for her resurrection. If the Queen fails to come back in a number of days, one of the members will go thru the same thing, so the spirit could go fetch Queen Antoinette's spirit and come back together.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1739822' date='Mar 31 2009, 09.20']EHK,

Is it your position that Religion adds no good to the world or that the good it adds is outweighed by the bad it causes?[/quote]

Of course religion adds good. Religiously inspired donations, care for the weak, charitable work. Inspiration and (in past eras) funding for great works of art and architecture. A unifying force for a great many peoples. But it is easily outweighed by the negatives even more so now than in eras past. We know longer need religion to unite Chrystendom to a common purpose in the era of mass communications, established cultural identities and nationalism. There are less divisive things to unite people that are not subject to the fickle whimsy of whatever god says nor the fervent devotion that subverts good sense and reason. We no longer need it to answer the mysteries of the physical world, because we know that even if there isn't a scientific answer yet, that one is out there. Art and architecture no longer needs religious patrons, influence, or inspiration to be done and done well. It is not necessary for people to be charitable. And as religious folk in the US tend to identify politically with the party that abhors welfare and foreign aid, they may actually be an impediment to alot of the more sizable and effective charity.

Religion serves no purpose that cannot be fulfilled effectively via secular means.

[TerraPrime]

Re: EHK

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1739632' date='Mar 31 2009, 03.39']The genuine nature of the religious belief is irrelevant. Kids are not consenting parties. They cannot give meaningful consent under the law or reality. Yes they are the victim of the circumstances they are born and raised in, but every civilized society places reasonable limits on the duties and responsibilities of parents and one that says 'You can't kill or needlessly endanger the lives of you kids just because god says so' absolutely falls within those lines. The well-being of the child trumps their religious freedom when it comes to matters of serious injury or death. Most western laws agree with this.[/quote]

The consent of children is basically a non-entity. Parents are given the default right to impose their will on their child. The leeway we give to parents to raise their own children is large, and justifiably so. The line we draw is where we consider the parents' actions to be willfully endangering the child's welfare. So we, as society, agree that a parent who's high on crack all day should not retain custodial rights of their children. I get that.

In this particular case, the event was one of punishment gone wrong, as far as I can tell, so it falls under that category of justified state intervention.

In a general sense, I think government should respect people's religious convictions, even if that sometimes leads to unfortunate deaths. I accept this sad truth just as I accept that thousands of people will die each year from motor vehicle accidents, and several dozens of people will die from firearm accidents. If we want cars and the right to own guns, we will pay a price. If we want religion freedom, this is the price we will pay.


[quote]The natural extension of your position is to accept honor killings, stoning for adultery, forced genital mutilation, beatings and murder for not wearing the right cloths, the forced second class citizen status of women, etc, etc. Where do you draw the line on what society should accept? Or do you draw one?[/quote]

When someone is of age, and if they refuse to participate in the religion, then they should not be forced to. If someone willingly follow a religion that demands honor killing, then I have no problem with them getting killed. I will condemn the religion for being barbaric, and work to counteract their effort to gain new members, but it will be that person's freedom to participate in a religion like that.

Also, forced genital mutilation happens every day in the U.S. We even send gifts and throw parties for them.

Now, since we're standing on a slippery slope, why don't we tilt the plane the other way a little? Many parents have terrible habits and practices that endanger their kids, from poor eating habits to second-hand smoke. Where do [i]you[/i] draw the line in allowing state intervention on behalf of children's welfare? Should we not give children of parents who expose their kids to air-borne carcinogens to the state instead? Should we not jail parents who groom their kids for early on-set diabetes and a lifelong cardiac problem? Do these not fall under your definition of the physical well being of children?