Freedom Of Religion

[AlphaToOmega]

To save derailing another thread I'm starting this one here.

 

My link

 

 

At the center of controversy are Congregants of Church of Christ, Scientist, along with members of other, smaller sects, including the Followers of Christ Church and the General Assembly and Church of the First Born. All are staunchly opposed to medical intervention in the case of illness, preferring instead to depend upon prayer to do the healing. Their devotion to what they call "God's will" has, according to their critics, led to the deaths of more than 172 children between 1975 and 1995 — all because their parents refused to seek medical treatment for their children's illnesses. According to autopsy reports, many if not most of the children could have been saved easily with simple antibiotics.

 

 

For its part, the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in twice on the topic; first in 1944, when it ruled that while parents "may be free to become martyrs themselves, it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children." The Court ruled similarly in a 1990 case.

 

And while the SCOTUS opinion did little to clarify the various rights and responsibilities of parents and prosecutors, it did identify one crux of the argument: Actively refusing available medical treatment for yourself is one thing, but presuming to impose your beliefs on another person — especially if that person is a child who may not have formed any religious beliefs at all — is something altogether different.

 

So why exactly is this acceptable under the guise of freedom of religion?

[Vigile]

What am I misunderstanding here? The courts ruled that parents cannot deny medical access for their children due to religious beliefs. The court protected the children from religion here. What's the problem?

[AlphaToOmega]

ooops, didn't fully quote it.

Its not sorted out.

 

 

So why does the legal protection derived from so-called individual "freedom of religion" cover these injuries the devout inflict on others — including family members incapable of making informed consent? In all but four states (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nebraska and North Carolina) parents can use their religious ideology as a shield against prosecution for withholding medical treatment from their children.

Part of the answer lies in the ambiguity of the SCOTUS ruling: The Justices do not provide a compelling ruling for law enforcement agents looking for a prosecutorial green light. And for the rest of the answer we turn to the wonderful world of political action committees. The Church of Christ, Scientist, whose members are fiercely opposed to medical intervention, is a powerful voice on Capitol Hill as well as in local town halls; the church's lobbying efforts have kept reforms at bay in most states for years. And even for the reform-minded, there are public relations hurdles to overcome; secular challenges to the autonomy of Church teachings are often successfully depicted as a threat to freedom of religion.

 

That approach may, however, be losing steam, especially in states like Oregon and Colorado, where juvenile death rates have risen along with membership in anti-medical sects. State legislators are energetically sponsoring bills that would end the ban on prosecuting parents whose religion compels them to withhold medical treatment.

 

 

Basically I'm showing that we have physical harm done by organised religion that is still having hurdles to overcome to get legally addressed.

 

 

 

 

 

[Vigile]

Well, I would support shoring up this so that kids aren't in fact being abused.

 

Another SCOTUS case I have huge problems with represents a loophole they gave to the Amish. Wisconsin v. Yoder allows the Amish to pull their kids out of school after 8th grade because they don't want them exposed to science. This is insane IMO.

[Mriana]

So denying them medical treatment is abuse, but denying them an education is not, if on religious grounds. Seems to me both should be wrong, but yet efforts are being made to change the first so parents can deny their children medical treatment and allow them to die. It's insane. Of course religion in general is insane.

[Noggy]

Freedom of religion and freedom from religions are very much intertwined. They need each other. Take one away, and so goes another. Please learn to tolerate.

[hereticzero]

Freedom of religion and freedom from religions are very much intertwined. They need each other. Take one away, and so goes another. Please learn to tolerate.

I only tolerate religion not on public display, such as street preachers interfering with my rest, peace and quiet. I don't believe religions have the right to dictate who requires medical attention and who does not because of their doctrines requiring the healing through the holy spirit.

 

I believe religious beliefs to withhold treatment from a child violates that child's Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and including the parent's requirement to provide a safe and healthy life for their child. Withholding treatment violates the right of the child to treatment. If the parents are so brain-dead that they cannot determine that their child is dying because of illness or injury, they I believe the parents should lose their parental rights to that child. But I am also aware of stories in which the state forced parents to provide chemo and radiation treatment to a child that resulted in that child's death (the parents had given the child chemo treatments and the doctor warned that both radiation and chemo may bring the cancer out of remission. When the state forced the parents to also include radiation treatments, the cancer returned and the child died.) Although I am against most interference by the state in one's family life, I am more against a parent who will do absolutely nothing to provide medical care for their child.

[Mriana]

Freedom of religion and freedom from religions are very much intertwined. They need each other. Take one away, and so goes another. Please learn to tolerate.

 

 

Oh so we are suppose to tolerate child abuse and death of children due to that abuse? We are suppose to tolerate the neglect of a child's education, which is also abuse? Are you insane? IMHO, if you deny a child medical care or an education is abuse and religion can be damned. Toleration and freedom goes out the door when people are being harmed and/or killed over religion. Religion = death, esp when taken to extreme and should not be tolerated.

 

 

[Mriana]

I believe religious beliefs to withhold treatment from a child violates that child's Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and including the parent's requirement to provide a safe and healthy life for their child. Withholding treatment violates the right of the child to treatment. If the parents are so brain-dead that they cannot determine that their child is dying because of illness or injury, they I believe the parents should lose their parental rights to that child. But I am also aware of stories in which the state forced parents to provide chemo and radiation treatment to a child that resulted in that child's death (the parents had given the child chemo treatments and the doctor warned that both radiation and chemo may bring the cancer out of remission. When the state forced the parents to also include radiation treatments, the cancer returned and the child died.) Although I am against most interference by the state in one's family life, I am more against a parent who will do absolutely nothing to provide medical care for their child.

 

 

Exactly! The child has rights too and that includes medical care and an education. Parents should not impose their beliefs when it comes to the basic needs of the child. Basic needs are first and foremost, and the child has the right to have freedom from and of religion also.

 

 

[florduh]

The practice of any religion must not break any laws. Unfortunately we often look the other way, afraid to infringe on our "freedom of religion" obsession. Fuck 'em. Keep a close watch on them all and fully prosecute every illegal act done in the name of religion. We can't legislate religion out of existence, but we can force them to practice in a civilized way - at least in this country, at least for now.

[Noggy]

I agree with Florduh. I never said religions should be exempt from laws. Amish kids should have to go to school just like I did. All children should receive medical treatment, etc.

 

My post was also addressing AtO's general thoughts of freedom from religion which was carried over from another thread. He/She believes there should be no religious freedom whatsoever.

[AlphaToOmega]

I agree with Florduh. I never said religions should be exempt from laws. Amish kids should have to go to school just like I did. All children should receive medical treatment, etc.

 

My post was also addressing AtO's general thoughts of freedom from religion which was carried over from another thread. He/She believes there should be no religious freedom whatsoever.

 

Really?

Can you quote that for me or are you all too happy to make up garbage and believe it?

 

 

 

 

[Noggy]

I agree with Florduh. I never said religions should be exempt from laws. Amish kids should have to go to school just like I did. All children should receive medical treatment, etc.

 

My post was also addressing AtO's general thoughts of freedom from religion which was carried over from another thread. He/She believes there should be no religious freedom whatsoever.

 

Really?

Can you quote that for me or are you all too happy to make up garbage and believe it?

 

 

 

 

 

See other thread. Maybe I've misunderstood some of the things you've said. You seemed against freedom of religion in many cases.

[AlphaToOmega]

The practice of any religion must not break any laws. Unfortunately we often look the other way, afraid to infringe on our "freedom of religion" obsession. Fuck 'em. Keep a close watch on them all and fully prosecute every illegal act done in the name of religion. We can't legislate religion out of existence, but we can force them to practice in a civilized way - at least in this country, at least for now.

 

 

Funny, that's exactly what I've been arguing for but I get accused of being hateful, intolerant and wanting to remove all freedom of religion and assembly???

I don't even know how I got accused of being against freedom of assembly???

 

I think it's your rubber glove. It allows you extra brownie points...pun intended. LOL

 

 

 

 

[AlphaToOmega]

See other thread. Maybe I've misunderstood some of the things you've said. You seemed against freedom of religion in many cases.

 

 

You seem convinced of that but I since I know my own views I'd like you to point out exactly where I so badly mangled my descriptions of my issues to make you think that considering you seem to be the only one under that impression.

 

 

 

 

[Noggy]

A hypothetical:

An rich Imam buys land all around ground zero and manages to somehow buy in the heart of ground zero itself.

He says under freedom of religion he intends to build a Mosque in every single location he owns with gold domes to be the pearl of Islam to be seen around the world and furthermore he funds it by stating that he will build Mosques in the heart of where their heroes struck Americans. He claims victory this will be a great victory in Islamic countries and gets their wealthy to put in funds. This brings much money into the USA. That's good for jobs. He is totally open about this in the American media. He intends to put up Mosques as a display of the might of Allah defeating America.

 

So far we have not violated any constitutional rights. They have freedom of speech so can say what they want. They have bought the land so its theirs to do as they please and they wish to put up Mosques and claim victory over the American people.

 

Is this still to be supported by the American people or does freedom of religion and freedom of speech have some limits here or does intent suddenly play a part?

This is where I got that you didn't understand the idea of complete freedom of speech and religion.

And this is what I figured.

The only difference is where we draw the line for deception and intent.

 

Its not the freedom of religion or the freedom of speech issues here.

Its what different people perceive as intent when its not spelled out for them

 

This one makes me feel like you feel that freedom of religion shouldn't exist. Because you believe "intent" should matter. You cant discriminate based on "intent". It doesn't matter if the people are building a giant middle finger with a burning 9/11 building on top of it right next to ground zero, they should be allowed to build it.

I'm not sure what the rights of a community are but back in Australia any house of worship requires approvals from the community before its built.

This is because it affects the local community significantly and not everyone who is already there wants the change.

 

This one also makes me feel that you don't understand freedom of religion in the US, which brought up the comparison of the bannings of the australian government.

 

 

In any case, I consider many religions guilty of practicing human rights violations including child abuse.

Convincing me that an abusive group should have the right to build a house of abuse anywhere is going to be hard to do unless there are mechanisms in place that remove the abuse from that institution.

 

They may have a constitutional right to practice religion but hopefully when the human race grows up a bit it will consider many religions as cults and have restrictions on what they can practice that are wider than they are now and stop the systematic brain washing and scare mongering of children.

 

This one probably most of all. ^-^ I think everything I thought you believed, was a reasonable thought for me to have. Maybe I'm still misreading these passages, or perhaps you meant something different than what you said. I dunno. Address.

[florduh]

I think it's your rubber glove. It allows you extra brownie points...pun intended. LOL

What can I say? No glove, no love.

[Ramen666]

Freedom of Religion, in the Constitution or not, has limitations just like any other Right. I for one believe that no right is absolute, no freedom is absolute and under certain circumstances can be overridden.

 

I mean take Freedom of Speech for example, since that one is a popular one, does anyone believe we have 100% absolute Freedom of Speech, while many would like to believe we do, we don't. A while back a posted a document done by Congress (36 pages) detailing the exact limitations we have on that right, some pretend those limitations are non-existent BUT they are very real and connected that not all speech is covered.

 

As for the giant middle finger to the people of 9/11, they can try to build it, DOESN'T mean people have to sit back and approve of it, rightsor not. There has to be a boiling point, were you go "to hell with it" and don't let that religion control our country, which at this point Islam is doing a good job of, with all this politically correct nonsense associated with it.

[AlphaToOmega]

A hypothetical:

An rich Imam buys land all around ground zero and manages to somehow buy in the heart of ground zero itself.

He says under freedom of religion he intends to build a Mosque in every single location he owns with gold domes to be the pearl of Islam to be seen around the world and furthermore he funds it by stating that he will build Mosques in the heart of where their heroes struck Americans. He claims victory this will be a great victory in Islamic countries and gets their wealthy to put in funds. This brings much money into the USA. That's good for jobs. He is totally open about this in the American media. He intends to put up Mosques as a display of the might of Allah defeating America.

 

So far we have not violated any constitutional rights. They have freedom of speech so can say what they want. They have bought the land so its theirs to do as they please and they wish to put up Mosques and claim victory over the American people.

 

Is this still to be supported by the American people or does freedom of religion and freedom of speech have some limits here or does intent suddenly play a part?

This is where I got that you didn't understand the idea of complete freedom of speech and religion.

And this is what I figured.

The only difference is where we draw the line for deception and intent.

 

Its not the freedom of religion or the freedom of speech issues here.

Its what different people perceive as intent when its not spelled out for them

 

IOW, its not an issue about freedom of speech or freedom of religion.i.e. We

(Ro Bear and I) agree to the tenants of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Its what different people perceive as intent when its not spelled out for them.

Basically intent is a huge part of the law.

Much arguing is done regarding intent rather than the actual act.

e.g. the difference between murder and manslaughter is intent.

Almost all law is primarily based on intent.

By stating the above I'm saying that we both agree that the act is one aspect and is largely a non issue for both of us.

The intent however is altogether different.

the point of the hypothetical was specifically to narrow down the source of our disagreement since we hold very similar views on many other issues I figured I'd just cut to the chase and get to the source. That was the intent of the hypothetical. Not to make a point but to clear up the source of disagreement. Its easy however to get the wrong idea as to why I chose that hypothetical since I have a habit of jumping many levels and so no one follows me and I usually need to back track like I've done here.

 

This one makes me feel like you feel that freedom of religion shouldn't exist. Because you believe "intent" should matter. You cant discriminate based on "intent". It doesn't matter if the people are building a giant middle finger with a burning 9/11 building on top of it right next to ground zero, they should be allowed to build it.

intent does matter.

Much of law is based on it. See above.

When we're working out a position or establishing law intent plays a large role as it should.

I'm not sure what the rights of a community are but back in Australia any house of worship requires approvals from the community before its built.

This is because it affects the local community significantly and not everyone who is already there wants the change.

 

This one also makes me feel that you don't understand freedom of religion in the US, which brought up the comparison of the bannings of the australian government.

 

I understand zoning permits and you can't build something anywhere just because you own the land due to them.

Its the same here as it is in Australia. A permit is requested and given based on certain criterion.

e.g. putting a church at the end of a short no through road would totally screw up the parking and disrupt traffic for the local community.

In Australia brothels are legal.

I can't however put one next to a school even if I owned the property.

Even if I called it a religion and didn't charge customers.

 

 

In any case, I consider many religions guilty of practicing human rights violations including child abuse.

Convincing me that an abusive group should have the right to build a house of abuse anywhere is going to be hard to do unless there are mechanisms in place that remove the abuse from that institution.

 

They may have a constitutional right to practice religion but hopefully when the human race grows up a bit it will consider many religions as cults and have restrictions on what they can practice that are wider than they are now and stop the systematic brain washing and scare mongering of children.

 

This one probably most of all. ^-^ I think everything I thought you believed, was a reasonable thought for me to have. Maybe I'm still misreading these passages, or perhaps you meant something different than what you said. I dunno. Address.

 

 

Yep, I fully stand by that comment. It will be hard to convince me to approve of putting up any building for a group to practice abuse.

Notice however that if a Buddhist monastery was proposed I'd have no issue.

If the local chapter of pedophiles anonymous wanted to build and run a private training school for young boys I'd also be hard pressed to give my approval.

 

The second sentence is in reference to this thread which I started after posting that.

Kids die at the hands of fundamentalist parents.

There is no reason for their deaths other than they practiced their religion.

I hope one day that people will grow up enough to understand that all forms of human rights violations are wrong and can't be condoned simply because they are religious in nature.

e.g.

I'm sure there would be all manner of people standing up and protesting a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice of their first born even if they have the constitution that says they have freedom of religion on their side. They do not have the right to murder.

Neither do these current groups have the right to use fear and intimidation to scare young minds.

They believe they have the right to scare their children.

They believe they have the right to scare adults into converting.

They believe they have the right to scare my family into their religion by use of fear and intimidation.

I say that they do not have that right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AlphaToOmega]

Freedom of Religion, in the Constitution or not, has limitations just like any other Right™. I for one believe that no right™ is absolute, no freedom™ is absolute and under certain circumstances can be overridden.

 

I mean take Freedom of Speech for example, since that one is a popular one, does anyone believe we have 100% absolute Freedom of Speech, while many would like to believe we do, we don't. A while back a posted a document done by Congress (36 pages) detailing the exact limitations we have on that right™, some pretend those limitations are non-existent BUT they are very real and connected that not all speech is covered.

 

As for the giant middle finger to the people of 9/11, they can try to build it, DOESN'T mean people have to sit back and approve of it, rights™or not. There has to be a boiling point, were you go "to hell with it" and don't let that religion control our country, which at this point Islam is doing a job, with all this politically correct nonsense associated with it.

 

Quite correct.

No right is absolute.

They all have limitations and they have them for good reasons.

 

e.g. you can't walk an attack dog on the street and give it the attack command as part of freedom of speech.

You'd get charged with murder if you were caught doing it.

Which I'll just add highlights the importance of intent when discussing any freedoms.

[ScifiChick]

As an example, many people, myself included, are against female genital mutilation, and it is practiced as part of a religion.

 

It's pretty easy to work out physical abuse and make it illegal. Mental and emotional abuse are harder to quantify, but it's a worthy effort. I know that in California law, you can only be guilty of death threats if the person you are threatening believes you and is afraid of you. Otherwise, the most you can be convicted of is attempt to commit death threats.

 

The thing is, it's kids we're trying to protect here, and I tend to agree with what Vigile said in the other thread. yes - my mother raised me as a Christian, and yes, the hell belief was part of it, but there's a world of difference between a parent trying to protect a child from hell and a group trying to control a child with the hell philosophy.

[AlphaToOmega]

You agree with Vigile and not me!???

 

Why you back stabbing wench!!!

OBEY ME WIFE!!!

[florduh]

Wimmen.

[AlphaToOmega]

Wimmen.

 

I know. You think you understand them then you get slapped around and publicly humiliated on a forum! LOL

 

For the record, I have no idea how people are getting the impression I'm trying to stop parents from teaching their kids about religion?

I have issues with how its done.

 

Likewise I have no problem with parents teaching kids to swim.

I do have issues with parents throwing their non-swimming kids a mile offshore and telling them they better learn quick.

 

Its not what you are doing but how you are doing it.

 

 

 

[Vigile]

You agree with Vigile and not me!???

 

Why you back stabbing wench!!!

OBEY ME WIFE!!!

 

You may be married to her, but she and I were raised in the same American paradigm.