If it's done correctly, like I said, so am I. I'm just worried that may not be the case.

Although, with Barack in office and all this "change" business coming to Washington I guess I have nothing to worry about. :cool:
I was referring to his quoting of The Ten Commandments as some kind of authority on the subject, especially when you consider how differently Christian Science no doubt interprets the particular one he was referencing.
But you do have the right to raise them as you wish, according to whichever doctrine you choose. When that gets in the way of the child's health of course there should be sort of prosecution. Again, I'm just worried where that will lead. It all depends on how the judge approaches it.

Yeah, I knew what you were responding to, but the point is that it's a side debate that's irrelevant to the issue. Who cares if it's an accurate interpretation of doctrine.

I'll assume what you really mean is something like "well-being," because otherwise you have an extremely narrow view of what the law should (and does) protect.

Hey, Worm. Cut the condescending bullshit. Because here's the thing:

Do you honestly think I'm against children living? Are you seriously trying to imply that I'm anti-children getting edumacated and living fulfilling lives and exercising their Constitutional right to dance? If so? You're a callous, imperceptive motherfucker. And if not? Then you're nitpicking wording. Which is the last resort of self-styled trolls when they can't find a legitimate issue to grouse about. Which is gaaaaay.

In summation (in case your reading comprehension is similarly lacking): Kids are cool, they deserve to live free and dance, but I am worried about the potential side-effects. Not to the point of being against prosecuting these Christian Science folks, but enough to feel uncertain.

Hope this helps. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...chocobo6bf.gif

Capo you know I have mad love for you but you have nebulous ill-defined bad feelings about a judge's decision re: gross child neglect because the parents happen to be religious.

all I'm sayin' is it takes one to know one ok

I don't know, for some reason I thought the persecution of the parent as an issue is made overly complicated because of their religion. I mean the fact of the matter is, they are being persecuted mainly because of their negligence and their child die as result. If they made such a decision because of any other, perhaps none-religious belief like government conspiracy then the result would have been the same.

Prosecution, Magi, prosecution.

I suck at English, okay? Q_Q

That's ok, if somebody told you X country persecutes gays you'd be all "man that justice system sucks" and you'd probably be right anyways!

Hey lay off of Capo, he's just worried that circumcision may be outlawed someday.

Stepping in here for a second, just what potential side effects could there be? I'm having a hard time grasping any negative ends that could come from people being told to be responsible with their children.

Specifics please, Capo, because you're being very vague here. "Where it may lead" and "potential side-effects" don't really describe anything.

I am no fan of religion myself, but in the end they denied their children medical care. Who gives a fuck WHAT they believe. It's ridiculous that their religious beliefs are what were behind their decision (not that there's really any excuse), but they still did it, and that should be more than enough to prosecute them.

If religious freedoms gave you the right to do whatever you desired, I shudder to think of what someone could get away with if they were just following the teachings of the bible to the letter.

Capo. What everyone is trying to say is that while it might be my religious beliefs that Jews are awesome if you roast them in an oven to medium-well, it doesn't make me any less of an asshole if I actually go and do it.

Yeah I guess the point is that whenever the law against child abuse was written, the ideology behind it wasn't "let's sabotage Christian Scientists" but "let's save some kids," and I don't think it's changed since then. I'd be more concerned over a new law that outlaws the teaching of Dianetics to children.

If we can't sacrifice virgins how else will we placate Volcano God?

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...mot-ohdear.png

Anywho, sorry for kinda sorta blowing a gasket there. I hadn't slept in over two days (or eaten more than a yogurt in that same span). Shit was wildin' out. I'm all power-napped up and freshly fed, though, so expect less angry, nonsensical rants and a whole lot more emoticons. As it should be.

Back to the subject at hand, what I think I was going for there was that if the ruling or verdict somehow included religion it would open the way for more legislature similarly imposing laws on religious practice.

It made a lot more sense when the edges of the postbits were glowing and undulating, trust me.

e: FUCK BUSH GOD IS DEAD ANARCHY FOREVERRRR

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...t-happyelf.gif

Man, I want what you're smoking.

Here's what you do:
1. Find a stretch of at least two days in which your workload is impossibly big.
2. Don't sleep. Laying in bed for six hours with your eyes closed is apparently alright, though.
3. Don't eat. Well, maybe a yogurt or two and a slice of bread, but no more.
4. Wait about forty-eight hours. Preferably cramming for tests and writing monotonous essays.
5. Start posting. And don't stop until your hands are numb.
6. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...s/emot-lsd.gif

Enjoy!

Requesting Capo's name be changed to Ana Forever plz

People follow retarded doctrine like "don't give your children medical care" (Christian Science) and "blood transfusions are the devil and if you get one because someone's saving your life before you have time to protest we're gonna excommunicate your ass" (Jehovah's Witnesses) because they're afraid of losing something that gives them hope and meaning to their life. This is why crisises of faith happen: because people can't justify what is personally right and healthy (let's go with mental AND phsyical here) with what they're told to believe. So they follow through with the awful choice (that, honestly, God probably looks down on these people for doing) that they're told is the right one.



It's like militant Muslims disregarding the whole "HEY LOVE EVERYONE" parts of Islam and taking the "KILL THESE MOTHERFUCKERS OVER THERE" parts. All religions have some sort of choice built in as to what you're supposed to do to appease God (blanket term). I think it's up to us to do the humanely right thing (loving people, not letting people die because your church says that helping them medically is wrong).

Well said. I probably have nothing to add to that, except a parent that chooses faith over a life-and-death situation of their child deserves to suffer their child's death. They pretty much asked to mourn for their child's death when they decided they're denying the proper health care.

But then again, I'm one of those people that believe God has nothing to do with my overall health and leaves it up to my own responsibility to take care of my basic health needs...but that's just me.

These wack-job parents deserve jail. What church do they go to anyway?

I don't think there is anything 'wrong' in believing in something, but a line has to be drawn between reality and fantasy.

Church of NASCAR, probably.

Church of God, Scientist in all likelihood. There's one near here that I would pass driving to my mom's for years, and I always wondered what exactly they practiced.

Hm.

You guys are thinking of this very rationally, so let me put it in a way the parents likely thought of it: their child's eternal soul was worth infinitely (like, in a very mathmatical sense) more than their child's life. I'm not saying I agree with their theology, but you're all very ignorant of the magnitude they believed their decision was - far more than you all think.