No my opinion wouldn't change in this instance. That being said because of a couple of things: 1. If these folks believed in faith healing only...then they would know what religion they believed in...yet they don't affiliate themselves to any. 2. In today's society and with the supreme courts ruling, it is simply not excusable to let neglect act as a defense for religion. If God intended us use religious healing only, I believe he wouldn't have lead Doctors to miraculous medical breakthroughs in the cure of illness/diseases, etc.
Y'all just let Clif think he's right...you know you'll never win or make him see your points. He's just looking for someone to argue with, like usual. 8) IMHO.. I think the parents were wrong in not seeking medical care since they had BCBS and should be charged. The mere fact that they had any type of health plan negates anything they may say about their "beliefs" in medical treatments. Thats my 2 cents, thats what Clif asked for, and I'm not going to give him the benefit of having to defend my point of view.
Then why bring it up? So I understand you as saying that they can't be religious unless they belong to an organized religion. Which goes back to my earlier comment on this that, basically, the Supreme Court ruled that God and religion are nice little fantasies, but you aren't allowed to let it run your lives. Can't you also say that, if God wanted us to rely on doctors and medicine, He wouldn't allow miracle cures to happen with out them?
You don't have to defend your point of view. I never asked anyone else to. If I did not understand their point of view, I would ask them to clarify. For some reason you seem to think that it's challenging your opinion if I say, "Yes, but what about..." But you gave your opinion. Thank you, please move on.
I bring it up, because it actually proves different than what they are saying. It is evidence that their actions spoke louder than words. You understand wrong, because you can be religious, but if you are so religious you would let a child die, rather than seek medical help then what religion do you follow? I want specifics instead of generalizations, or excuses for neglect. No basically the Supreme court ruled (as I stated earlier) that you are free to do with yourself what you want according to religious beliefs, but you are not allowed to endanger the public or children because of those beliefs. See Clif, children can not make their own decisions until they are 18, so why should someone force their beliefs on me (let's pretend I'm 11) and allow me to die because of their beliefs (negligence)? God does allow miracle cures, but most of the time it is after medical cures have failed. That is when he steps in and imposes his will, after all other resources have failed. So let me understand Clif, are you saying that the Supreme Courts rulings should not be followed? It is okay to break the law? If so, then lets say I don't believe in driving the speed limit, is that okay for me to say I have formed a religious belief, but not affiliated to any organized religion, and God tells me I can drive more than the law states? Would that excuse my negligence in breaking the law? Even if I killed someone while speeding?
The problem was not that the parents wanted God to heal their child. The problem came about when they demanded that God heal her in a specific way. They wanted to make Him perform a miracle. If a group of Christians got together and earnestly prayed that God deliver $100,000 in their bank accounts overnight would He/should He do it? I think not. We all know that's not likely to happen but many of us know that it could happen simply because we have an all-powerful God. But that's not how He works. On the other hand; if the same group got together and worked diligently in their businesses could God bless them with increased finances? Could the $100,000 still appear in there bank accounts? Yes. Would the credit still go to God? Absolutely. But in a different time and a different way. We need to pray carefully and remain open to what God's plan may be. Not tell Him exactly how He needs to work in ours. People shouldn't try to put God in a box. The outcome may be very disapointing. Sad story.
But we're talking more general terms. Yes, I started the thread discussing this specific scenario. But at the time the question of insurance wasn't involved. I never did intend to ask if these people in particular should be charged given the specific circumstances. My question was intended to be more generic. That is, should parents who rely on faith and God to heal their child be charged with a crime if that child dies? Are you religious? Do you believe in God? I'm not talking about paying lip service one hour a week that you would gladly miss if there's a good football game on. No, I'm talking about a full on acceptence that God answers prayers and miracles occur if you have enough faith. A level wherein going to a doctor is an admission that God isn't quite all that the Bible declares Him to be. This is the type of parents I'm talking about. Who are you to force your lack of faith on them? Who is the Supreme Court to pass a law against their belief? Your child is sick. You take him to a doctor with the belief that the doctor will cure him. If the doctor doesn't and he dies, should you be charged in your child's death? How is your faith in the doctor different that the parent who has faith that God will heal their child? Just because the law says so? Because you have more faith in your doctor than you have faith in the other parent's God? Is it ok to have faith in the doctor because you can see him, but you can't see God?
I think the parents' faith must be greater than mine, since if I made the decision to withhold medical treatment from one of my children based upon my religious beliefs and then the child died, I probably wouldn't be able to live with myself.
Clif, I don't know the answer to your questions. All that I can say is that it isn't up to any of us to make our own judgements on this, they (the parents) will face their own judgement day with God and he is the only one that can give them the punishment or the acceptance of their actions. Now with that being said (to perhaps answer your next question), yes, if called upon to be on the jury for this case I will say the same thing.
I now understand what you mean in generalizations. How is it the parents right to force their faith on a child? How is it the right of the parents to decide the fate of a child by depriving them of their own rights? It is the parents belief, so why is it always the children that reap what the parents believe? Is it also the right of parents to physically beat a child into submission if they so choose, because of their religious beliefs? At some point the welfare of the child has to be more important than the parents beliefs. How are the parents rights more important than the childs life?
That will come as a surprise to the DA, judge and jury once this goes to trial. But it sure does sound like your answer to "should they be charged?" is a "no". Cool.Better to ask and get answers than ask and get accused of trying to start an argument. Good questions. One more good one. But you're avoiding the specific question of, who makes the decision? You? Me? A group who may or may not believe in any god much less the same god? Then we're back to the question of, if you place your faith in God to cure and the cure doesn't happen, you should be charged. Yet, when you put your faith in a doctor to cure and the cure doesn't come, you should not be charged.
No not avoiding it, so here is my answer. I believe it is up to We the people to decide. Within a civilization there are laws that are put into place to protect the interest of that civilization as a whole. I think with the Supreme Courts ruling that is in place. So it will be up to "we the people" of the jury to decide these folks fate if they are charged.
Well dang....at this point...after following and reading this thread...YOU'RE GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE!!!! My head is spinning..:jester: So you never said, what is your opinion at this point?
Because God didn't get a medical degree....instead he created man, with a brain (and I use the term loosely ...man & brain in the same sentence) so that he could take his children to the doctor. You're starting to take this way too far Clif, even for you.
The Wisconsin statute 948.03(6) provides an exemption from the law against failing to act to protect children from bodily harm for what is referred to as ‘Treatment through prayer.’ The statute says: ‘A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing … in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.’ The faith healing exemption (section 948.03(6), read together with the child abuse statues sections 48.981(3)(c) and or 448.03(6), explicitly state that it is not considered child abuse nor neglect to rely solely on prayer or cultural practices or ‘Christian Science’ for healing a child, even to the exclusion of medical means. Unless there are other issues uncovered by the police investigation for example, previous child abuse, beatings, maiming, etc, other than this child’s illness then there are no charges the parents will face.
