Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/1/2003 2:21:10 PM EDT
OK, I didn't read all the Mormon threads, in fact I can't find them. But there are some articles in the Phoenix New Times [url]http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/special_reports/polygamy/index.html[/url] about a fundamentalist Mormon sect that they seem to want prosecuted. Then there was David Koresh who had the underage wife, but the authorities who investigated the place for child abuse didn't charge him. But he & around 70 others were burned to death, even if mainly for a different agenda. The targeting of Randy Weaver & his family might or might not have been encouraged by the authorities' view of his family's religious beliefs. And of course for years there has been the issue with Jehovah Witnesses & those parents who withhold medical attention. Not sure what the law has done in those cases. Don't forget the Indians who have peyote as part of their religion. Santeria adherents have had the problems with authorities over animal sacrifice here & there. Probably there are many more examples. So when should the government trump religion in matters of faith? Or not.
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 2:23:18 PM EDT
When a childs life is at stake. ie. When the parents REFUSE medical treatment and opt to pray for healing. Otherwise not at all....
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 2:25:01 PM EDT
"Congress shall make no laws..." I'm sure the Jim Jones and Koresh models will sway generations to come, on whether Congress should be involved at the establshing or governing of Religions...sad.
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 2:28:06 PM EDT
Poll added
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 2:47:02 PM EDT
WHen a child's welfare is at stake. Seriously. Whacky religous beliefs are fine, and protection of those beliefs are a cornerstone of this nation. But. A minor does not have the experience, opportunity or rational capacity to make those kind of decisions about potentially harmful activities for themselves. Good examples would be: 1) Female circumcision; 2) Witholding modern medical care for life-threatening illnesses or injuries; 3) Sexual activity; 4) Ingesting drugs; 5) Snake handling; 6) Vegan diets for infants. All of those activities, when conducted on children, who are not legally recognized as having the rational capacity to make such life-altering decisions, have been held by the courts to be not legal. Which I agree with.
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 2:58:20 PM EDT
I voted never. Although I hate orginized religion and feel it has no place in a reasonable persons life. I believe it has caused far more problems then it has solved as of late. TO EACH THERE OWN.
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 3:05:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By natez: WHen a child's welfare is at stake. Seriously. Whacky religous beliefs are fine, and protection of those beliefs are a cornerstone of this nation. But. A minor does not have the experience, opportunity or rational capacity to make those kind of decisions about potentially harmful activities for themselves. Good examples would be: 2) Witholding modern medical care for life-threatening illnesses or injuries; All of those activities, when conducted on children, who are not legally recognized as having the rational capacity to make such life-altering decisions, have been held by the courts to be not legal. Which I agree with.
View Quote
Doesn't #2 conflict directly with the beliefs of Seventh Day Adventists? While I agree with you that children shouldn't be victimized by the religion that their parents have chosen for them to be brought up practicing, should the law be allowed to interfere with this established religions practices?
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 4:55:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 5:18:36 PM EDT
the state should never intrude on the matters of faith. additionally matters of faith do not make you immune to secular law. this means that if you faith says it's okay to mutilate children while they're alive, that's fine. do what you want. but remember that you also have to contend with the secular law that says it's not okay. and if your religion says it's okay to smoke pot and snort coke, that's fine. do what you want. and remember that there are secular laws which forbid this, and you are still subject to them.
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 5:27:58 PM EDT
They should outlaw muslim religion in the U.S.
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 5:51:37 PM EDT
ibtl
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 5:52:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stormbringer2: When a childs life is at stake. ie. When the parents REFUSE medical treatment and opt to pray for healing. Otherwise not at all....
View Quote
This is a tough one. I voted never........but....... Being a man of Christian faith and believing God does and will heal people, if my kids ever get sick they will be going to a doctor. I will still pray and I will still believe God for their healing, but God expects us to use the wisdom He has given us. God has given the doctors knowledge for a reason. Use it. I do not think parents should be able to REFUSE to have their sick children tended to by doctors. Having said that I don't really want to give the government any power over how we should raise our children. Including how we care for their health. So , for now my vote is never.
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 5:56:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By alaman: They should outlaw muslim religion in the U.S.
View Quote
Um, thats a little harsh. I think we should keep it legal, but send anyone who follows it over to Mecca, where they can live with their friends.
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 10:57:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/1/2003 11:06:15 PM EDT by prk]
Young people: I don't think the law should interfere with private or home-schooling, if the parents believe the public schools put them at risk of being taught againnst their faith. But when the issue is a matter of withholding life-saving treatment, placing them in danger, or providing drugs, alcohol, etc. (though I don't know a religion that has that as part of their faith) that's one place I draw the line. While what happened to the Branch Davidians was wrong, I do have a problem with Koresh: He believed they were going to be subjected to an attack, yet he didn't negotitate removing those young peo0ple from danger. As far as animals go, if your religion says to sacrifice a goat on the altar, so be it. And the media, well they can pound salt, if you ask me. Nobody should be beholden to them, they act like they're a religion unto themselves. While i don't think the Musliim (or any other) faith should be banned here, I would sure like to see this country's immigration laws actually enforced, borders guarded, laws tightened, etc. And those women who don't want to remove their veil for the DL, they can have the men drive them around, take the bus, taxi, whatever. You can keep that article of faith, just be ready as one poster said, to pay the price.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 3:25:55 AM EDT
And, what will happen when a group of Incas chooses to worship in the traditional way?
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 3:57:07 AM EDT
I think the government should actively seek out and persecute believers of all faiths. Anyone up for calling me a bigot?
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 7:33:00 AM EDT
The first Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" However, when a religious practice violates standards of decent human behavior or established laws, it's got some problems and the government has the duty to protect it's citizens from that, especially when those citizens are unable to protect themselves (children for instance.) Should the government be circumspect in how it goes about policing these practices? You bet! They better be damned certain that the sects and practices in question are really violating the law with their practices, and they better go a lot "softer" than they did at Waco. Of course the time it took for government to interfere in the Catholic Church's child-rape sex scandals is unconscionable.
Top Top