Generalities is really too broad to get into in this situation. I would go by what the Supreme Court has said: The U.S. Supreme Court has said, therefore, that the First Amendment does not give parents the right to use religion to endanger their children's health. The court stated in the 1944 case of Prince v. Massachusetts: "The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death."
I do not believe the parents were doing what was best. I believe the parents said they were doing what they thought was best. I think the parents were being bad parents. I don't believe that the parents believed for one second that they thought God would take care of their daughter.
Posted by Clif: After all the crap you have posted in this thread about me, now you want me to believe you're trying to understand where I'm coming from? I was born at night, but not last night. b/c you make it very confusing.....but if you would like to be continue to be a jackazz then go right ahead......... you ask for understanding today.......I was going to offer it to you.............shame on you!
posted by Clif: I'm not seeking any particular answer, just discussion. No, you are looking for an arguement not discussion.......
How so? To me that's saying that the Supreme Court has ruled that religion is a nice little fantasy, but don't let it run your lives. That is your opinion, and you are entitled to have it. The parent's opinion differs from your' however. So what makes your opinion better than theirs?
Clif, From the article you posted her Mother said this.... The girl's mother, Leilani Neumann, said that she and her family believe in the Bible and that healing comes from God, but that they do not belong to an organized religion or faith, are not fanatics and have nothing against doctors. Plus, her Father used to be a Police Officer?? It sounds to me by the Mother's own statement that they were just negligent in this situation. It just seems that once the girl slipped into a coma (at that time they would have definitely known something was terribly wrong), then they would have reached out to the medical world, since they "are not fanatics and have nothing against doctors."
See and to me it's saying as an Adult you are free to do what you want to yourself if that's what your religion calls for, but you are not entitled to endanger the community or children, who have no choice of their own, by your own negligence.
Because as an adult who chose to have children I know that in this life, the real world, that my children have to go to the doctor and be provided healthcare. Its not some big top secret. Its not knowledge that only comes to those who are rich, or of a certain race or background or upbringing. There is no credibility in them saying 'God will take care of it'. Everyone in this day and age knows what it takes, no matter what or who they worship. They can, will and should be charged to the full extent of this day and time's laws.
Here's an interesting item I came across, thanks to google: http://www.americaslastdays.com/?page=theyshall-leilani That was written about a month before the girl died. Here's a couple of press releases from the ministry about the girl's death: http://www.unleavenedbreadministries.org/?page=pressrelease http://www.unleavenedbreadministries.org/?page=pressrelease2 Death from diabetes is not quick, like a heart attack or stroke can be. That girl was sick for a long time before her organs finally shut down.
When I think on religions that normally shun modern conveniences like medicine, etc. and truly try to live by the word of God, I think of the Amish. I also want to mention that I totally respect their belief and way of life. Even after looking into their beliefs on modern medicine, I came across this....and let's just say they don't have HMO cards..... Anyway, I digress, so back on topic. I would believe if someone in a religion like the Amish, who truly try to live their lives from the bible and their beliefs chose not to seek medical care then they would be justified. However, in this case on the 11 yo girl, they themselves said they didn't belong to any religious organization and didn't have a problem with doctors, etc. and obviously lead their lives just like all of us do (modern conveniences-like the computer that was also confiscated from their home), except for taking their children to the doctor. To me from the looks of their lives, insurance cards, this is an excuse instead of a lifestyle. http://www.holycrosslivonia.org/amish/amishfaq.htm Do the Amish use modern medicine and doctors? Most Amish and Mennonite groups to not oppose modern medicine. Their readiness to seek health services varies from family to family. Nothing in the Amish understanding of the Bible forbids them from using modern medical services, including surgery, hospitalization, dental work, anesthesia, blood transfusions, etc. They do believe, however, that good health, both physical and mental, is a gift from God and requires careful stewardship on the part of the individual. With few exceptions, physicians rate the Amish as desirable patients: they are stable, appreciative, and their bills will be paid. They do not have hospitalization insurance, but they band together to help pay medical expenses for anyone of their group who needs financial assistance. A designated leader in the Amish community is given responsibility for their mutual aid fund.
wow I read the press release on this from the group. Not my type of people.. not saying their faith is wrong but its wrong for me
So, am I to understand that people can only be religious if they belong to an organized religion? Not sure what his former profession has to do with anything. But these people are not Amish. The fact that Amish use doctors has nothing to do with the conversation.
They can be religious, just like I can be religious as I don't belong to any organized religion. The point I'm trying to make is this...they themselves say they are not fanatical and they don't not believe in doctors, so why are they trying to use their religion as an excuse for negligence? So exactly what religion believes in not going to the Doctor, but purchasing health insurance? His former profession means he would know the laws and what child neglect is, so he can't plead ignorance on this subject. You wanted to talk in generalities, and I proved generalities are just too broad to speak of in this situation.
They didn't say whether or not they believe in doctors, they said they "had nothing against doctors". Their comment by the aunt specifically was, "she [the girl's mother] believes in faith instead of doctors " Don't know, nor is that the question at hand. The girl had seen a doctor when she was three (eight years ago). People's beliefs change as they get more information. It could be the insurance was not up to date, or other some such reason. Be that as it may, though, we're speaking in more generic terms. If this family did not have insurance, would that change your opinion?
yep, this engineer report looks better everytime I glance over at this thread. See my point girls..... back to my reading .....
