Posted on 02/02/2009 8:01:58 PM PST by outlawjake
According to religions that practice faith healing, such as Christian Science and Scientology, using any sort of medical treatment would underestimate and doubt the almighty powers of God, and would ultimately cut them off from God. As parents, however, they must be able to balance their role as caretakers and as devoted followers.
(Excerpt) Read more at newuniversity.org ...
The idea of government duty to usurp parental rights evolved when parents abused their parental authority by abusing their children. That duty was expanded by expanding the idea of abuse to include neglect, in these cases, neglect for medical care. The problem with neglect is that it has no boundaries, it is in the eye of the beholder. We are not far from expanding the concept to those parents who feed their kids McDonalds and they become overweight or diabetic. If the government can dictate what they eat, what else will the government be able to dictate?
>when should government say that a child’s life is more important than the parents religious beliefs..
On what moral grounds can the Government ascribe any value to the child’s life, and yet none to the victims of abortion?
Considering that we live under a government that thinks nothing of aborting a baby, I’m not sure that I would be willing to give complete control to them.
Maybe I’m missing something but isn’t it reasonable to think God gave people the brains to find cures with medicine?
>On what moral grounds can the Government ascribe any value to the child’s life, and yet none to the victims of abortion?<
Truly profound question.
bump
true.. but i have heard many arguments that the government should not interfere with parents ability to choose based upon their religious beliefs..
religious freedom vs.. childs health and life..
balancing act.. personally i am in favor of government intervening when it comes to a childs life.. even for lack of medical care... unless maybe its an extreme circumstance where child’s fate is unknown with medical treatment..
such as a chemo treatment where likelihood of success is small..
but seems to me if we were talkin about abortion.. if someone said their religious beliefs prohibited them from having a child.. most people here would be against allowing abortion..
two classic cases.. christian science church and policy against operations.. means a child could die from ruptured appendix...
Jett travolta.. not on any seizure medication.. but was having grand mal seizures every four days.. should gov’t have intervened?
1) The rights enumerated in the Constitution are God given, and do not exist on the authority of the Constitution nor of those that signed it, nor those now in government.
2) Medical science is completely unable to prevent anyone from dying (think about it).
3) The theological case for "faith healing" precluding medical treatment is too weak to properly be considered an exercise of religion in the sense the Constitution enumerated. One might as well declare that their "religion" allowed them to rob a bank.
I agree with most of that... but.. what to do in a case similar to Travolta’s where scinetologists view psychiatric medicine to be evil.. and what not....
so kids get no anti-seizure medicine.. is government supposed to step in and force the kid to take medicine..
I do not know enough about medicine or the particulars of the case to make that call. However, I don't see where the hand's-off-religion clause of the First Amendment is applicable (I refuse to buy into the canard of calling it the "anti-establishment clause").
As far as the government inteference with parenting, I think we are properly guided by the following principles:
1) The parents are by default the child's best advocate, and the rest of the family should stay out of it unless there is a compelling reason.
2) Other adult relatives are by default the child's next best advocates, and are primarily responsible for reporting circumstances so grievous that the local government is compelled to use its authority to interfere with the parenting of children (other people who might learn of the situation also share this responsibility as well, but are generally less obliged).
3) When notified of circumstance so grievous that government interference is warranted, the local government should be the authority that ought protect a child on behalf of God (not on behalf of society, mind you, being that society can not grant the child rights). The local government ought be able to rely on available responsible adult relatives of children to advocate for the child whenever possible.
4) Only in cases where there is dire failure on behalf of more local governments to protect children should the federal government or federal law be involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.