Trials For Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine

'Thou shalt not kill' is very different from 'Thou shalt save'. I know in Protestantism this differs, but we're not talking about Protestantism. For that matter, we're not talking about Judaism or Hinduism or Islam or even Catholicism. The only relevant information is that of Christian Science doctrine.

The fact that you don't like a certain religion means nothing, so far as the protections the Constitution guarantees all religions are concerned. Now, I know this is much different than just discriminating against a religious group, since the issue of children dying is in play, but you really have to consider how touchy a subject this is.

If the government were to limit or take away the rights of Christian Science parents to raise their children as they wish, according to their doctrine, the implications and possibilities would be vast. It opens the door for the conversation of so much more, as delicate an issue as it is. I think people tend to forget that with the placement of a law, so goes the precedent, and the eventual snowball effect that could result.

Yes, this kinda sounds a whole lot like the argument of those against gay marriage, but I truly don't think the rights of religions and their adherents should be imposed upon, especially if those rooted in culture go untouched while others are subject to scrutiny.

Basically, it comes down to the wording of the verdict. So much depends on how one judge chooses to place his words. If he does it right (restricting possible prosecution to those parents who neglect their children in life-threatening situations, regardless of religion) I see no problem. I'm just worried he'll be more inclusive, his ruling more wide-reaching and with greater implications. And that wouldn't be good.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by a lurker

I am absolutely comfortable with the snowball effect of prosecuting gross child neglect.

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.

Originally Posted by Salient Worm

No, the relevant information is whether parents have the right to deny their children medical treatment.

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.

Originally Posted by Salient Worm

Plenty of such restrictions already exist. We call them "laws." You don't even need to get as specific as what Pang's getting at--it's common sense that you can't do whatever you want to your children.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LZ

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

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



I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

Enjoy!

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?