Religious Freedom or Child Abuse?

[spiritually inclined]

Frubals, Dallas!

 

[madhatter85]

The bottom line is parents have the responsibility to care for children..Not say "suffer" and if you die its Gods will..NO...get your head out of the sand..and face REALITY..If you don't its YOUR will ..Not Gods..

We are not drones or robots We dont float around on a mystical God cloud that sustains us.....Even Jesus thirst..He ATE..he drank ...he slept..Why??? Because his BODY needed it..

Why in the WORLD would you exclude life saving medication or medical surguries??

We were gifted ...with a BRAIN...Lets use it people..

Love

Dallas

such good things you say!

 

[kai]

The bottom line is parents have the responsibility to care for children..Not say "suffer" and if you die its Gods will..NO...get your head out of the sand..and face REALITY..If you don't its YOUR will ..Not Gods..

We are not drones or robots We dont float around on a mystical God cloud that sustains us.....Even Jesus thirst..He ATE..he drank ...he slept..Why??? Because his BODY needed it..

Why in the WORLD would you exclude life saving medication or medical surguries??

We were gifted ...with a BRAIN...Lets use it people..

Love

Dallas

theres the problem!

 

[YmirGF]

Should the free expression of religion include the right to deny life-saving medical treatment to one's children?

No. Why is religion important? The last time I checked there is no religion on the planet that is considered a source of illumined medical knowledge, so why exactly would religious considerations matter? I would go so far as to demand that any religion that imposes its belief systems on any person who has not reached the age of majority should be stripped of it tax exempt status -- immediately -- until they see fit to comply.

Perhaps it is time to start prosecuting religious leaders for supporting such delusional parents for criminal negligence. That ought to wake up a few holy rollers.

On the one hand, my knee-jerk reaction is to oppose any restriction on the free exercise of religion. Once we start legislating which theologies are or aren't legitimate, where does it end?

As stated any action that affects an individual, regardless of their personal beliefs and convictions, prior to the reaching of the age of majority (in their locale) should be treated as an issue of criminal negligence. Last time I looked into it suicide is against the law in most places on Earth, so if your own inclinations could result in death, they should be deemed as attempted suicide. Easy breezy, lemon squeezy.

On the other hand is my equally strong belief that the state has a moral obligation to protect children from abusive parents, and medical neglect qualifies.

Morality be damned. We owe the children. Why do people insist on dragging morality into the equation? I don't even see it as an ethics or morality question. It's about criminal negligence -- nothing more and nothing less.

I honestly don't know what my stance on this is.

For me, it is a bit of a "no brainer". Screw the warped religious values and legislate them out of existence. My own perspective is that religion has been a "sacred cow" for far too long and it really should begin to face the consequences of its collective actions and admonitions.

Besides this, why is a practice ok just because some froot loop religion demands their followers to accept unreasonable admonitions?

 

[madhatter85]

For me, it is a bit of a "no brainer". Screw the warped religious values and legislate them out of existence. My own perspective is that religion has been a "sacred cow" for far too long and it really should begin to face the consequences of its collective actions and admonitions.

The Sacred Cow part made me chuckle, It makes me think of all the people in India and other hindu regions that starve to death when there are cows right in front of them............:run: