Christine the Lioness (3122)
Christopher the Pyro (1985)
ProphetJoe the Irreverent (1228)
Trouble the Pirate (600)
Keith the Director (573)
Mara the Peacemaker (530)
eric the Lil' Devil (351)
AJ the Zen Master (305)
Ben the Kingpin (213)
Haas the Addict (187)
Christine 2 the Mercenary (131) Lei the Mercenary (124) Katie the Mercenary (115)
Ben2 the Soldier (56) Christopher the Pyro got all philosophical
This is a difficult situation, I believe we have a right to refuse medical attention and anything else we want based on religions freedoms, but I also think there should simply be a law that says until 18 parts are obligated to treat their children regardless of their medical beliefs. It’s kind of amusing tho, Christine thinks the state has a right to make this choice for children under 18 but children under 18 can make a decision to get an abortion without notifying their parents.. you know because they make such good decisions. Back to the subject matter tho, this really is a non-issue, parents are the legal gardians and protectors of thier children they make the chioces for them until they are 18, that also means they are obligated to give them the best possible medical treatment.
Crystal the Soldier said this
I agree with you, Christine. I think this is no less neglectful than starving a child. One could say they believe food is unneccesary, and the feel their God will provide them with all of the nutrients they need without eating. It’s not ok to starve a child who cannot make their own decisions. We’re not uncivilized, we would stop a parent from cutting their child as some African tribes do (to mark them, bring them into the tribe), so why should we allow basic human needs to be withheld?
Christine the Lioness remarked
I agree with Crystal… but there are so many fine lines. For a brief time, I taught P.E. to 3rd graders and one day a teacher came out and said she was going to have a little girl sit out of P.E. because she was worried about her over-exerting herself. The teacher went on to explain that the girl was Muslim and she was “fasting.” Of course, we all let her sit out of the class and all that… but does that qualify as starving a child? I mean, isn’t there a reason that we give kids three meals a day? Sure, maybe you could go without one once in a while… but fasting means you’re not eating. And when teachers who are charged with the safety of your child are worried about her/him over-exerting him/herself doing regular kid activities because you– as a parent– has decided because of your religious beliefs that he/she can’t eat… is it abuse? Neglecting to get your child medical treatment causing his/her death seems extreme, but there are levels of this all along the way… when does it become abuse and warrants intervention, and when is it just different strokes for different folks?
Now, Christopher brings up a good point. He believes he found a contradiction in my beliefs, but actually, I don’t think it is. I have, for a long time, believed that parental notification laws regarding minors getting abortions are wrong. But let me be clear… I’ve never said that the minor should be able to make the decision without any adult being in on that decision. I’ve always felt that if a girl felt she couldn’t go to her parents (which I completely blame the parents for– it’s a parent’s responsiblity to foster a relationship with their child that makes the child feel comfortable enough to talk to them about these kinds of things), then there is probably a reason the child feels she can’t go to mom and dad (maybe they’re abusive, or their religious beliefs would dictate whether or not she could have an abortion, etc.). So my feeling is that as long as she goes to an adult (school counselor, coach, etc.), that is enough. If you force her to go to her parent who has the power of signing a consent form or not, and that parent denies consent, then the situation isn’t much different than forcing your child to go without medical attention. Both are decisions that you are making for your child based on your own religion, because you feel they are right. Now, I know someone will say that “notification” and “consent” aren’t the same thing… but in essence, they are. The parent is supposed to sign that they were notified, and signature doesn’t represent consent, but that doesn’t force them to sign if they disagree with it. I’m sure each state with notification laws operate slightly different, but to my knowledge, this is how it works most of the time. And the other point I’ll bring up is… in the case of the state stepping in to prevent parents from denying their children medical attention, it is really the state that we are trusting. By giving the state that power, we are saying we trust the state will do what’s best for a kid over what a parent has decided to do. Because abortion is legal, in essence, the state is condoning it over what a parent might want. So the situations are similar in that respect. How can we say that the state’s preferences govern if the child is being denied medical attention from a parent, but the parent’s preferences govern if the child wants to have an abortion. That seems more like a contradiction to me. Don’t you agree?
While I completely agree with Christopher and Cyrstal in this case and I think parents should be forced to give their children medical attention until they are 18 at which point the child can refuse it on her/his own… it still seems like a violation of religious freedoms in some ways… not that violating religous freedoms is always bad. But it’s such a slippery slope… to use Crystal’s Africa reference… of course, here, we would think that’s uncivilized to cut your children, and the idea of female genital mutilation in some middle eastern countries is horrifying to us. But that’s just because our culture finds that behavior unjustifiable. Is it that much different that parents who decide to pierce the ears of baby girls? No one really gets up in arms about that, but isn’t it a less invasive version of the same thing?
Christopher the Pyro scribbled
It make a whole lot of sense to bring outside “adults” into decision making but not the parents.. and then we wonder why everything is so fucked up. We need to be able to trust parents to feed and medicate their children but not help them make big decisions.. not following your logic.
Christine the Lioness spake, and sayeth
I think if we could trust all parents to make the best decisions for their kids… I wouldn’t need to write a post on parents who are in prison for letting their daughter die of diabetes, now would I?
The truth is… there are parents out there who DON’T make good decisions for their kids (or for themselves for that matter)… if parents could just be trusted to always make the right decision, we’d have no need for: child protective services, children’s rights advocation, anonymous procedures so that witnesses can turn in abusive parents, laws in every state regarding involuntary manslaughter of a child due to parental choices made on religious grounds, the oath teachers must take when being employed by public schools in California to report neglect or abuse of their students if they notice certain signs, etc. Instead of parents being up in arms about not being notified that their child wants an abortion… how about taking some responsibility to teach that child about abstinence or safe sex, and then actually supervising that child so that they are not out making babies? If a parent is doing his/her job well, and involved in their kid’s life, then two things are likely to happen: (1) the kid probably will learn from his/her role model parents to make good decisions and not get pregnant or impregnate someone, and (2) will feel comfortable enough in his/her relationship with his/her parents to talk to them about what happened if a pregnancy occurs. So… until there is no need for all those agencies and entities put in place to protect kids from situations that their parents should be protecting them from… I think we (sadly enough) can’t trust that all parents will just do the right thing. It’s not the outside agencies and the government that’s fucking things up… if the parents were holding up their end of the deal, there’d be no need for those agencies/laws, etc. to be formed and no need for anyone to intervene. So yes… show me that every parent is a good parent who can help their child make a good decision, and I’ll show you a country that doesn’t need to even think about the creation of parental notification laws.
Mia the Groupie added
I would have to agree with christine on this one, it is sad that we cannot trust parents to make such wise decisions for their kin and yet we cannot trust the state to do so either without in a way having the parents consent. All the things that happen because a child is in the care of well in my opinion stupid parents, is y all the services christian mentioned are here now. Still for most kids, not many really want to talk to their parents no matter if they are doing their “job” right and teaching them that they can talk to them and basically showing them the right way to act ect. I think its tuned in that after a certain age to really not talk to parents about anything for say you tell your mom something and you only wanted her to know it, then she goes and tells your father. That trust right there is broken and you will never want to tell them anything ever again. Unfortuntely and yes sadly enough we cant trust all parents will do the right thing, and with how society is and how it seems to be going, we may never get to the point to actually trust parents to do whats right for their offspring. Still we live in a sad place if this is happening
Ben the Kingpin remarked
So, on the one hand the government is bound to protect children from their parents and on the other it’s bound to protect a parent’s right to kill the child before it’s born?
That’s just totally asinine. It’s like believing in the death penalty and thinking abortion is a crime (and vice versa).
Christopher the Pyro quibbed this
I agree that it’s a complete contradiction in beliefs, we are creating a slippery slope of judging parents. We must trust that a child can make a choice to make a decision to kill yet we can’t trust parents to do what is in the childs best interest. It won’t be long before we are punshing parents for feeing their children too much, not enough, not dressing them warm enough, or cool enough, for cutting their hair to short and damaging their confidence. If a parent is abusive to a child and it is obvious enough for a teacher or a person to see then civil services shoudl get involved but other then that, I pretty think parents should have complete control over their child until they are 18.
Christine the Lioness spake, and sayeth
So Christopher… if a parent is abusive to a child but doesn’t leave a physical mark in a place that a teacher can easily see (or if a parent is psychologically abusive to a child), then you’re suggesting they’re not being abused enough to have someone step in and intervene? Now THAT is asinine.
Christopher the Pyro quibbed this
Ok, so instead of just assuming most parents are good we are going to start assuming they suck.. that makes sense.
Ben the Kingpin stated
I’ve seen government housing. The last thing I want is the government involved in raising children.
Christopher the Pyro uttered
lol, lets see all the good things government is good at… social programs, taxes, diploymacy, budgets… ya I’m sure they would do a bang up job raising kids.. come on ben have some faith.
Christine the Lioness thought this
Okay? I have to agree on the government housing thing? and on government cheese? have you seen that? It?s wax.
But? on a serious note, if a hundred parents are great and one is abusing his kid, there is still a need to have a system in place that will help the one child. If we start assuming all parents are good, it makes life easier than having to face the reality that some aren?t and we need to actually be proactive and do something to help those kids. While we?re at it? we could assume most people are not thieves and there?d be no need to lock our doors. But that doesn?t really help protect us from the few that would be happy to break in and steal your big screen t.v., does it?
I?m surprised Christopher has such little faith in the government when he can barely stop gushing over how great the Bush Administration is doing? Hrmmm? so we can?t trust the government to do what any yokel in this country is allowed to do (have and raise kids), but we can trust them with our economy, foreign policy, and deciding if we should go to war? if we can?t trust them to raise kids, I certainly don?t feel comfortable trusting them to send our troops off to Iraq.
Christopher the Pyro penned this
Sometimes I can’t understand why I waste brain cells arguing with you. Nobody is saying there should not be a mechinism to protect abused children, but we are saying that the government doesn’t have ability to raise children better then 1 or 2 good parents. You don’t see a whole lot of succesful kids commin g out of state run institutions for children, and these are the same types of institutions and people who are advising children. I think parents simply have a right to know and talk and influence their children about every decision they make until they are 18, period. Simply I’m more comfortable with the idea of even average parents advising their child then someone like you, myself or any of the fucking idiots in non-profit groups and goverment. If someone ones to argue that they are advising or protecting a child better then a parent would that is 99% of the time simply not true, all individuals, institutions, agency’s and governments have agenda’s, almost all parents only have their childs best interest at heart, that simply cannot be said about anybody else.
Christine the Lioness remarked
Actually, I believe that institutions and child advocacy lawyers, etc. that are set up to protect children, and the people who decide to dedicate their lives to working there, really do have childrens’ best interest at heart. Where did that 99% statistic come from? I think you may have pulled that out of your ass. And a majority of the time, I believe parents really do want to do what’s right in raising their kids, but there are also a lot of parents who are very selfish, who want kids because they like the idea of offspring, but then don’t want their own lives to change at all, or be bothered with raising them. That’s why so many parents hire nannies instead of raising kids themselves. I know that’s a different situation than parents who abuse kids, but my point is, I don’t believe parents always have their child’s best interest at heart. And it’s not like the government is raising these kids. They try to place children in foster care, and help these poor kids have as normal a life as possible… but there aren’t always foster parents available, and by the time a child is removed from his/her home, a lot of times a lot of psychological damage has been done. Christopher likes to (1) believe every solution is very simple; and (2) doesn’t really like to see things that make him feel “sad” or create a call to action. I think if you spent one hour talking to a child advocacy lawyer (who makes shit money because there’s no money in that type of law compared to what they could be making doing other types of law), you’ll hear some of the stories of situations they’ve dealt with and you might change your limited perspective.
Christopher the Pyro added
Yes.. I know you have your beliefs in your institutions.. it’s the same thing as your belief in One Voice is more then rich people doing their holiday clensing so they don’t feel guilty about homeless people.
Child advocacy lawyers agenda’s are clients to pay them money, (or organizations) the more rights children have the more court cases they fight the more money they make. If we grow the size and power of silly organizations then those people are guaranteed jobs and clients (Planned Parenthood), the 99% simply came from looking around.. I see so many children that show absolutly zero signs of abuse, we simply cannot start treating all children as if they are abused, that is a complete invasion. I dont’ believe every sitution has a simple solution but I also don’t like bringing strangers into every situation just because tehy avocate a point of view you believe in which is precisly the reason you don’t believe in parental notification laws… otherwise it makes zero sense and that doesn’t have a child making choices without their parents, it’s like the child who sues his parent becuase they didn’t let him go to band camp. Also if you think for one fucking second that a child advocacy lawer is making 1 cent less then any otehr type of lawyer then you have just entered the realm of complete and utter delusional insanity, that is simply not the case.
Ben the Kingpin uttered
I have four children. My wife is pregnant with #5. What I find fascinating are the proliferation of people *WHO DON’T HAVE THEIR OWN CHILDREN* who try to tell us how to raise ours.
What’s even funnier is when they have their own children and finally learn why we parents make the choices we do and come back apologizing for thinking they knew how to do it better than we did.
(Trust me, this has happened so many times I can’t count them all!)
Ben the Kingpin asserted
The first requirement for *ANYONE* to be a social worker should be that they have already raised at least two children through their college years before they are allowed to tell anyone else how to be a good parent.
Katie the Mercenary stated
im not going to say anything here about what you should and shouldnt do… but my aunt (dads sister) former catholic now a “crazy” jehovah (hoping i didnt just offend anyone) when she was preg with my cousin had tons of problems…and needed blood and wouldnt let them give it to her…. to this day my dad and his siter still fight over the health of my cousin….b/c of my aunt and her religious beliefs
Ben the Kingpin scribbled
I have to admit that I’m seriously torn on issues like this for the simple reason that I don’t think that idiotic beliefs based on cults should be accomodated to allow the injury of children (one extreme). But I also think that parent’s rights to make the choices for their children should be protected from government intrusion (the other extreme).
We practice a very non-traditional naturapathic lifestyle that eschews hospitals and doctors except in *serious* cases. (For instance, urgent care for my daughter’s broken arm, but no doctor for her ear-ache, while a doctor was involved for strep throat–so we could get antibiotics–and no doctor for my food poisoning last week.)
What I don’t want to see is a bunch of ne’er-do-wells micro-managing parenting based on a few idiots.
If we used that logic, we’d lock up every abortion doctor and woman who had an abortion, skip the judicial process and send them all to the gas chamber because *one* of them didn’t follow all the appropriate regulations.
Katie the Mercenary penned this
i agree ben …. personally i hate doctors and only go when i need to …but if its my kid ill prolly be the psycho mom who is at the docs everyday if the kid coughs wrong lol
Christine the Lioness asserted
The point is, Ben, no one is going to step in and take your child away because you decided to treat an earache at home. But if a child is being abused (and I don’t mean because they didn’t get to go to band camp), but let’s all be realistic here and admit that there are lots of children who are seriously abused by their parents all the time… then someone should do something. Christopher is very happy believing that everyone grew up exactly like he did with two parents who are still together, took care of him and his brother, made sure they were provided for, and helped pay for his college, etc. When he starts to entertain the idea that not everyone is that lucky… it makes him feel bad inside… sort of sad… and he doesn’t like that feeling, so he pretends it doesn’t exist. This is partially why Christopher has so many issues… and he bailed on volunteering at One Voice (a charity that gives food and Christmas gifts to below-poverty-level families each year) with me because he said he “didn’t want to see the poor families… it would just make him feel bad… so why would I want to do that?” In my opinion, that was precisely the reason he needed to go… but whatever… I went alone and helped out. And yes, there were moments where seeing these little kids almost ripped my heart out… but at least I helped out. Christopher can criticize the “rich people” for helping out with the charity, but at least they did something to make a difference… and that’s more than I can say for Christopher.
Christopher the Pyro said this
That isn’t exactly true. I don’t need to go do a charity once a year to make myself feel good and I certainly don’t mind giving to people in need, but I absolutely refuse to help people direclty who won’t help themselves.. and that is all One Voice was, one big gathering of rich white people helping poor people who won’t get off their ass and ride a bus to Santa Monica to help feed their own familys.. I won’t be part of that idiocy. I told Christine if this is important to her next year ask me for a check, but don’t make me deal observe a situation that isn’t helping a community… because really what bothered me the most, is that the poor communities won’t help themselves, and until they do nothing is every going to change.
Christine the Lioness thought this
Christopher’s last comment actually hurts me a lot. One voice is a great organization that provides Christmas dinner, gifts, and a visit with Santa for kids of families who are below the poverty line (”the working poor” meaning a family of 4 is living on an income of $17,500 or less in Los Angeles). I’ve been involved with it for several years. It doesn’t enable people to stay poor… it gives disadvantaged children something special in their lives at Christmas so they can have the same awesome Christmas memories that regular kids have when they think back about their Christmases when they were growing up. I think that’s so important… some of my favorite memories of my childhood were Christmas and I think if there’s anything I can do to make that happen for a kid who wouldn’t otherwise, then I’ll do it. And I don’t think there’s anything idiotic about that. For three nights prior to giving out the food and books and gifts to the kids, volunteers are invited to meet at the Santa Monica airport and help package and box up all the food and load it onto trucks. Christopher thinks the impoverished families should have taken buses to Santa Monica from other areas of the city where they live to help box up their own food. But I think it is a lot to ask a family who is already struggling to take care of their kids and without childcare, and many without cars to come do that. There were plenty of volunteers– yes mostly rich white people because they live in the area surrounding Santa Monica– who came to help pack up the food and toys. I don’t think I ask christopher for a whole lot, and it was really important to me that he come with me 2 days out of the 4 that the charity goes on… but he decided he already knew everything about it, and that it was idiotic, and so I went alone. I think it is very easy to just write a check and clear your conscience, but I think it would have been good for him to see the families that need help and see these little kids’ eyes light up when you tell them that Santa has toys for them. When you give to charities, you rarely get to see where your money is going. But One Voice is different. It allows you to experience the human part of helping and see the individuals who are benefitting. Christopher has animosity for impoverished people because he says they don’t help themselves… but that’s simply not the case. These people work jobs… they are cashiers at grocery stores, and security guards in parking lots, and day laborers, and cleaning ladies. Maybe they haven’t made the best decisions and maybe they don’t speak enough English or have enough confidence or education to improve their situation, but I don’t think its their child’s fault. So even if you’re like Christophre and attribute a person’s poverty just to him/herself, giving a child a Christmas memory of something special is always a good thing. That’s my opinion.
Ben the Kingpin added
Christine, when the furor about child abuse hit a crescendo in Missouri there was more abuse by those in the system than the children supposedly endured at the hands (or voices, in some cases) of their parents. I know because my parents were part of the group that helped found VOCAL (Victims of Child Abuse Laws). There was one incident I recall where a man yelled for his child not to run into the street and the child was taken away for over 3 months.
I simply do not trust our government to handle wisely what our species has done by nature for thousands upon thousands of years.
Nor does my sense of individual freedom allow for the idea that the groupthink mentality is better *in any way shape or form*.
jona the Virgin chimed in with
okay so i am doing a report on this too and this is a good thing that all of you guys are commenting and i really enjoy reading these! okay well i have to finish my report!bye!
ProphetJoe the Irreverent quibbed this
“I simply do not trust our government to handle wisely what our species has done by nature for thousands upon thousands of years.
Nor does my sense of individual freedom allow for the idea that the groupthink mentality is better *in any way shape or form*.”
Ben makes a VERY good point — well, he did almost 2 years ago anyway — after all, “Government” is only the highest logical progression of a “mob mentality”. Who among us thinks that’s a good thing?
Christine the Lioness pontificated
I don’t think it’s a bad thing for a group of public representatives (which is all gov’t really is) to be a second eye so to speak in assessing whether a situation is safe than to rely on the decision of one single person. I don’t know about you, but I encounter people in L.A. every single day who I wouldn’t trust to make a decision about telling me the right time, but yet we should just let them have sole discretion on how to raise a child?
Spend one week working with child abuse victims, and I promise you’ll change your mind. It’s not fair for a child to die because his parent has some psycho religious belief. If we’re going to do that, then we need to just let parents sacrifice their kids on alters because the devil told them to because they believe they should. It simply makes no sense.
THere SHOULD be legal repercussions for things you do that affect other people whether that person is your child or not is not relevant. As a living human being, they have individual rights and liberties.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent quibbed this
“THere SHOULD be legal repercussions for things you do that affect other people whether that person is your child or not is not relevant. As a living human being, they have individual rights and liberties.”
Yes and No, Christine. Yes, there should be repercussions, but there ARE relevant issues between a parent and a child. Parents are given far more discretion with their children than with anyone else. I could, for instance, lock my child in his room, or physically remove him from a business, for being unruly — I would certainly not be allowed to do that with another adult or someone else’s child. (and before you protest, I don’t actually lock my kids in their room. I may send them to there room, but I do not lock them inside… yet — the teen years may change that!!) I would also remind you that children are not afforded the same rights and liberties as adults.
It is also relative. You find their religious beliefs to be “psycho”, but what if their beliefs were the norm? Years ago in Africa, there was a newly-discovered tribe of natives who believed that being photographed “stole their soul”. A photographer (I think he was working for National Geographic) was killed because he was caught taking their picture. In his mind, he was harmlessly documenting their life for the rest of the world, but to them, he was savagely destroying their whole tribe. Who was wrong? Were they wrong for killing the photographer for taking a few silly pictures (our view) or was he wrong for violating their cultural and religious standards (their view)? In the part of Africa he was in, he was wrong…
You also said “I dont know about you, but I encounter people in L.A. every single day who I wouldnt trust to make a decision about telling me the right time, but yet we should just let them have sole discretion on how to raise a child?”
Yes, until they explicitly violate a law, we should. They (the parents) were solely responsible for bringing the child into this world and unless I’m mistaken (which never happens 
), they are legally responsible for the child until s/he is 18. Furthermore, you say you encounter people every single day that you wouldn’t trust with telling you the time, yet you’re advocating getting a group of people together — which will include some of those untrustworthy people — to decide how you should raise YOUR child (I’m talking future tense. I don’t think you have children yet, do you?) Do you really want a “committee” to decide how well you’re raising your child??
I’ve worked on/with literally hundreds of committees in my career and my experience is that committees exist to A) cover their ass, and B) validate their existence. In this case, “A” is normal human behavior. No one wants to be blamed, so they can defuse blame by shifting it to the committee as a whole (as in “I wanted to vote NO, but the committee voted YES over my objections”). Also, in regard to “B”, if you have a committee to “fight child abuse”, you can be sure that they will find child abuse “around every corner” in order to validate their work and the committee’s very existence.
You also said “Spend one week working with child abuse victims, and I promise youll change your mind. Its not fair for a child to die… ”
I’m sure Christopher has pointed this out to you more than once, but life is not fair. You are right — I’m not an expert on abused children nor have I worked in such a setting (which is what you were subtly saying), but I am a parent and have worked with kids (under 16) for more than a dozen years in 2 youth ministries and in organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts and the Civil Air Patrol, so I have seen a myriad of “parenting styles” — many of which I personally find objectionable. But that doesn’t mean you and I (or any one else) are the moral authority to interactively judge their parenting skills. Like most crimes, child abusers are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In short, (too late!) being a bad parent isn’t a crime and once a crime has been committed, it’s often too late…
I wonder how things are in the Cayman Islands… gonna get any snow for Christmas, Trouble?
Christine the Lioness scribbled
‘Ive worked on/with literally hundreds of committees in my career and my experience is that committees exist to A) cover their ass, and B) validate their existence.’
I disagree. While you may have found that as the case with “committees,” we as a society agree that multiple opinions are a better check and balance system than one– hence why a jury is made up of 12 people instead of 1 and there are three branches of government instead of just a single president. Do I trust an entire school board to get closer to knowing what’s right for a kid over my neighbor “Keith,” yes I do– simply because multiple views can be discussed in any given circumstance.
With regards to your photographer murder/soul-stealing example, quite simply, yes, the tribe was wrong. Photography doesn’t steal your soul. Plain and simple. Whether they believe it does or not. And whether the entire tribe believed it or not is irrelevant. Keep in mind the words of Benjamin Graham… “If you’re wrong, you’re wrong. It doesn’t matter how many people agree or disagree with you.” Before you defend the tribe and say “well that was the belief of that community,” I’d like to ask if you would subject yourself to a major surgery performed by the doctors of that culture. If you say no, and you don’t have confidence in their abilities the way you would with a doctor in the western, civilized world, then you are essentially admitting that you don’t have the same confidence in their decisions/education/etc. as you do with a doctor say in the U.S. It’s fine to be culturally sensitive, but right now, there are areas of the world that think it’s fine to practice female genital mutilation on prepubescent girls. There was a time in our country that we felt kidnapping slaves from Africa and forcing them to come here to work was also okay. We’ve moved beyond that because it’s the natural progression of things… so while we can say that some of those cultures haven’t moved beyond their antequated beliefs about child rearing or whatever, doesn’t make them right. It simply means they haven’t progressed to the point we have yet.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent mentioned
You bring up several valid points. Unfortunately, we (both) are getting away from the crux of the discussion — and I admit I steered the debate off course by making committees the center of my discussion — parenting/religious convictions vs. governmental oversight.
You say “With regards to your photographer murder/soul-stealing example, quite simply, yes, the tribe was wrong. Photography doesnt steal your soul. Plain and simple. ”
Please prove that point!
A soul is not a worldly manifestation that we can see, touch or measure, so you can’t provide objective, empirical proof. I’ll grant you that most any one of us would say “but I’ve had my picture taken and I still have my soul!”, but that’s just the sort of thing I would expect a soul-less minion of the zombie world to say.
The relative nature of the natural world and the religious realm is complex. Granted, a jury (another committee) in the US would have convicted the African native of murder for killing the photographer. But don’t forget that the “jury of his peers” (or perhaps the tribal council) in Africa would not have convicted the native for dispatching the evil, white man who steals souls, so governing oversight (or peer review) isn’t necessarily a valid tool.
The part on your post which I find objectionable is this:
“Religious freedom is up to the individual, and we do not give children under 18 the choice to vote for president or make key decisions for themselves so I don’t believe they have the choice to make this decision for themselves either. And another human being (even a parent) should not be able to make a life-changing choice based on his/her religious beliefs because they are making that choice for another individual. So in my opinion, based on that, I believe the state has the obligation and right to step in and save a child’s life despite the parents’ whacky religious beliefs… ”
Your thinking sounds “Socialistic” here, Christine (to me anyway). Parents make actual and potentially life-changing decisions about their children on a regular basis. Society and the legal system realize that no one (normally) has a more vested interest in the child than the parents. If you think of our model of capitalism in the US, the notion of “Greed is Good” comes to mind. It’s a catchy way of saying “self-interest is best for free individuals” The same is true of our social model. The family is the center-piece of our society. By allowing a government-sanctioned entity (a court, an agency, whatever) to control the family decisions (especially in religious doctrine), you’re effectively ending the family model. Contrary to Hillary’s socialist title — It Takes a Village
– it does not take a village. It takes a family.
Now combine the 2 parts of my argument. Religious convictions are a matter of faith. We cannot prove the existence of God, nor the soul, etc. Furthermore, the parent is best-suited to make decisions for their children. The parent in this post felt that God would heal their child or take her to heaven (unless you’re believe that she would go to hell because her parents didn’t get her medical attention). I’m sure they feel her lose more than any of us and celebrate her life in the kingdom of heaven. After all, I’m sure the mom and dad , when pressured by the doctors to provide medical attention to their daughter, were quoting Benjamin Graham too…
Mara the Peacemaker hunt n' pecked this
I suppose my question would then be when is a parents’ religious belief wacky or at least, outrageous enough to require state intervention?
ProphetJoe the Irreverent asserted
Never? Are we governing beliefs now, Mara? I think the burden of proof is their parental actions and how it compares to adult behavior. You can (and I don’t want to debate the merits of seat belt laws vs. personal freedoms) ticket an adult for not wearing a seat belt and you should ticket the parent for not putting his/her child in a car seat or seat belt. Likewise, if an adult hits another adult, you would charge him with battery and if a parent beats a child s/he should be charged with child abuse.
The big difference here is that refusing medical attention is not a crime for an adult. Should we impose our collective religious beliefs on those parents who would not accept medical attention for themselves too?
Once we start legislating religious beliefs, we fall prey to a host of problems…
Btw, where the hell is that pirate? It’s Friday afternoon and he doesn’t have even 1 comment in the “Recently Said” list…
[SQUAAAWWWKKK!]
Christine the Lioness said this
So, PJ… the parents who instructed their children to take part in the Jamestown Massacre were just killing their kids within the rights of their religious beliefs to do so? To answer Mara’s question, when a parent’s religious belief puts that child in harm’s way physically or emotionally, or provides them with a significantly lower quality of life than they could have if their parents did not hold that belief, then I think it’s asanine for us to sit there and say that the parents are making the best decisions for those kids.
Muslims have their children fast. If they fast to the point of starvation, the gov’t has a right to intervene. It appalls me that if a person starves his dog, the SPCA will go in, take the dog, and press charges, but we somehow think that a parent can do anything they want as long as they label it as acceptable within their religion.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent quibbed this
“To answer Maras question, when a parents religious belief puts that child in harms way physically or emotionally, or provides them with a significantly lower quality of life than they could have if their parents did not hold that belief, then I think its asanine for us to sit there and say that the parents are making the best decisions for those kids.</em”
Well… the first half of the sentence, I agree with you. If a child is physically or emotionally harmed (or put in harm’s way), then we have laws to address that situation — regardless of whether the cause is their religious beliefs or not. The same applies to adult interactions. If you do something which causes another adult to be imperiled, then you can be held accountable.
It’s the part of the sentence in bold which I find very disturbing. Who are you to decide what constitutes a “significantly lower quality of life” is, and if that life is better or worse for a child? I believe there are a significant number of parents in the US (and probably the world) who would be offended to have a white, upper-middle class, middle-aged (but very youthful ) child-less woman telling them how to raise their child. I know it is a trite expression, but I think you’ll feel differently (if and) when you have kids yourself.
You also said “that the parents are making the best decisions for those kids.” We, as a society, do not legally require parents to make the “best” decisions for their children — we leave that up to the parents themselves.
As for your analogy — I believe you mean the Jonestown Massacre… if so, i find it interesting that you chose a event which occurred in your infancy, on another continent no less, to prove your point. American law had no jurisdiction in Guyana. Perhaps a more recent event would be the Waco, Texas stand-off with David Koresh and the Branch Davidians.
Sure, they were, by classic definitions, a cult (as were the People’s Temple at Jonestown, Guyana), but who did a greater harm to society — David Koresch and the Branch Davidians or Janet Reno and the Dept of Justice? So far as I know, Koresh’s members didn’t actually kill anyone until their home was stormed by Federal troops. The Fed’s actions *did* result in the death of 74 American citizens after a 51 day siege. Again, I ask, who’s actions benefited the kids the most — the parents/followers of Koresh, or the Federal agency?
Just food for thought when discussing “government intervention” issues…
So, my beloved Fighting Illini have to face the mighty Trojans of USC in the Rose Bowl and we’re *only* 14 point underdogs — I’ll be happy if we lose by less than 20.
Say, if I drive out there, will you get me a Rose Bowl ticket and put me up for a few days? I’ve been hoping Trouble would offer to let me crash at his place for a week or 2, but so far he’s still MIA.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent scribbled
Damn. I forgot a closing bracket on my /em tag… sorry, now it’s harder to read!
Also, just to clarify, I wasn’t planning on staying at Trouble’s for the Rose Bowl — I just want to visit the island paradise he calls the Cayman Islands!
I have a friend on a cruise ship traveling to the Cayman Islands. She’s pretty hot, but I’m since she’s on her honeymoon, I’m *hoping* that Trouble won’t be called in to address any vaginal dryness emergencies!
Mara the Peacemaker added
Well, “best” and “quality of life” too subjective. To be frank, even emotional harm can be subjective…or at least it is when you’re talking about state intervention. A lot of people who grow up in conservative religious households are “emotionally” harmed (and these are not even the most extremist of Christian fundamentalists) but most of us would probably agree that state intervention is not appropriate in that scenario.
I think this issue is tricky because you have so many competing interests: the religious freedom of the parents, the ability of parents to raise their children without burdensome govt oversight due to their religious beliefs, the state’s interest in protecting the welfare of children, etc. You can’t simply say that whenever a child is “harmed” due to a parents’ religious belief, the state must intervene. It isn’t that simple. Moreover, harm, alone is not even the threshhold. We’re looking for a specific type of harm and I think that is something that is continually negotiated in the legal arena and beyond.
Mara the Peacemaker uttered
Hey, can I remain a lil devil?
ProphetJoe the Irreverent asserted
You’ll always be a lil devil in my book, Mara…
Christine the Lioness hunt n' pecked this
Mara, I don’t disagree. But wouldn’t it be appropriate to use the same guidelines for “abuse” whether the motive is religious or not?
Say, if a parent refused medical attention for their kid because he was punishing the kid for being bad, and the lack of medical attention put that child’s life in danger, the state would intervene. If a parent does the same thing and justifies it because it’s a “religious view,” we question their freedom to do it.
The outcome is the same. Dying is not in the child’s best interest no matter what excuse you throw out there to justify it.
Mara the Peacemaker spake, and sayeth
“But wouldnt it be appropriate to use the same guidelines for abuse whether the motive is religious or not?”
Well I’m not disputing this. I was just pointing out that the “guidelines” are difficult to establish and are something that continues to be redefined due to the competing interests. This difficulty exists whether religion is the motivation or not.
But I think what complicates this issue even further is that at some point, the state has to presume that it knows what is in the child’s best interest (as opposed to the parents) and when this happens, there will always be a tension between the state’s right to protect the child and the parents right to raise/protect their children as they see fit. Let’s take your example but say it’s a child that has cancer. The parents believe that chemotherapy will be more harmful to their child and refuse conventional cancer treatment for their child. Maybe they have religious reasons, maybe they don’t. The state wants to intervene. Is this abuse? Is the child being harmed? The answer isn’t so clear-cut because you’ve still got competing interests (without or without the religion factor) and valid arguments on both sides.
“The outcome is the same.”
Yes, the outcomes are the same but we, as a society, are prepared to recognize one of the justifications as possibly valid because we recognize, protect and deeply value religious freedom in this country. So perhaps it isn’t entirely inappropriate to question a parents’ religious freedom in a particular scenario and we can always decide to limit that freedom as well.
Christine the Lioness asserted
Those are good points, Mara. And I do see that the value of religious freedom is a cornerstone of our beliefs in America, so perhaps we should be more careful when choices are made based on religion than when they’re just based on neglect or laziness. The law does, in most cases, recognize the offender’s intentions.
My issue is that it makes it very difficult to decipher whether someone is truly making a decision based on their best intentions and religious values, or whether they are simply using it as a “legal defense.”
Perhaps there is no way to control this… and when it comes to something like Cancer where courses of action may be more harmful than helpful and there are no guarantees something will work, it’s a different situation than refusing to have your child’s appendix removed when you know they will burst and kill the child and the treatment to prevent their death is almost 100% guaranteed.
Mara the Peacemaker mentioned
“My issue is that it makes it very difficult to decipher whether someone is truly making a decision based on their best intentions and religious values, or whether they are simply using it as a legal defense.”
I see what you mean. I don’t know how you could determine whether a parents’ decision stemmed from sincere religious conviction.
Trouble the Pirate quibbed this
PJ… “Once we start legislating religious beliefs, we fall prey to a host of problems” …Wouldn’t it be more correct to say, “We need to stop legislating religious beliefs to move in line with the whole separation of church & state dogma we harp on about?”
There are statues of Moses and st. Paul in your library of Congress, the entire moral foundation and constitution of your country are based on biblical concepts, not the least of which are the ‘ten commandments’, and your president prays for divine guidance to justify his decision to send thousands of children soldiers to fight for oil freedom…
You quibble about whether the lord’s prayer shouldn’t be recited in morning assembly, or creationism as a theory has a place in school, while you allow fornicating televangelists to manipulate the minds and bank accounts of 3/4’s of the population, and religious lobbyists to dictate the country’s’ foreign policy and allocate military funding…
Being that my family hails from Guyana, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the leaders and members of the “Peoples Temple Church” were in fact American Citizens… The “Jonestown massacre” which took place in 1978 in Guyana, where 913 members of the “Peoples Temple Church” including 276 children ‘lost’ their lives because of a misguided belief that Jim Jones was acting in their best interests, was a very relevant, though often overshadowed and forgotten example of parents acting in a manner contrary to the ‘best interests’ of their children. It is unfortunate that your freedom of religion act allows this and similar incidents like Waco, Heaven’s Gate and the Solar Temple to take place… There are always warning signs when you are involved in, or about to do something really stupid… In the latter group in 1994, a three month old baby was killed by wooden stake through the heart method… One might suppose that this could be construed as a ‘bad’ thing, and a harbinger of other ‘bad’ things to come… Or not…
I would also like to point out that although the USA has suffered many of these cult inspired murder/suicide incidents, it is not alone in the world.
In an effort to quell the number of future incidents, I propose a few ‘common sense’ guidelines that may help you decide:
1) If your spiritual leader tells you that allowing him to anally penetrate your son/daughter will help them get into heaven, there is a strong possibility that he just wants to bust-a-nut in your kid’s ass.
2) If your church requires you to do bi-weekly target practice, and purchase a quality silencer for your TEK-9, there is a strong possibility that they may one day require you to return fire with the Federal government.
3) If your leaders decide to dispatch a baby a-la-Dracula-style, reasoning that it is the reincarnation of Satan… There is a strong possibility that they aren’t anointing with a full bottle of holy water.
4) If you are told to leave the bedroom when your spiritual guide ‘hears’ your wife and daughter’s ‘confession’, there is a strong possibility that he is video-taping them performing incestuous sexual acts on each others vagina’s.
5) If your third-world jungle survival kit contains a suspicious looking syringe labeled “doomsday cyanide punch” and the expiration date is the day before you’re scheduled to fly back to Los Angeles, there is a very strong possibility that you may not need that return plane ticket.
Forgive me if I sound callous, but sometimes, though terribly unfortunate, nature weeds certain people out, just like the white-people who run off to discover the source of that mysterious screaming noise in horror movies. The most unfortunate are the children of these people…
Please don’t think I am singling anyone out… My government itself is a mishmash of bible thumping, scripture misquoting, self-interestedly-interpreting, ship of fools, with concern for naught other than inflating their own bank-accounts…
The government can’t be trusted with a check-book or a concept… Let alone raising children… Perhaps it would be better to squirt grape-flavored strychnine down your kid’s throat, than relegate them to state-care.
Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.
