Posted on 04/23/2013 10:36:56 AM PDT by OKRA2012
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.
Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I admit its a thorny question: at what point is government intervention legitimate? On the other hand, what society can allow parents to refuse medical treatment to seriously ill children? What kind of society lets them cite the constitutional protection of religion to do this? If Religious liberty can cited for this, then why not invoke it for, say, bombing a crowded public street in Boston?
I don’t think it has anything to do with the right to bear arms.
From my grandmother’s Catholic Bible.
“Leave not the reading of the Scriptures to the ignorant, lest they rest their own destruction.”
For the record, I have just checked my great-grandparents Bible, published 1874, imprimatur Archbishop of Philadelphia, and the Bible my grandfather gave my grandmother for their engagement, imprimatur Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore in 1890.
Neither on has the phrase you quote.
Just for the record of this thread.
I asked if he thought parents’ rule was so absolute that they could force an underaged daughter to marry and got no reply, which is telling in itself.
glad you werent my parent so that I might have had to die on behalf of your pronciples!
glad you werent my parent so that I might have had to die on behalf of your pronciples!
I asked if he thought parents’ rule was so absolute that they could force an underaged daughter to marry and got no reply, which is telling in itself.
What it “tells” is that I missed the post. The answer to your question is, yes, I believe parents should be allowed to do that. I wouldn’t. I don’t think it is the correct course of action, but it is something that I think is none of my business.
The very phrase “underage” is a subjective word. Kinda like the word “safe”. And not to be too redundant, it is also a matter of personal opinion. I can also find no Biblical scripture that calls doing such a thing a sin.
Ahhh, a member of the Christian Talaban, huh? Yet, you paint yourself as a libertarian.
HA
Ahhh, a member of the Christian Talaban, huh? Yet, you paint yourself as a libertarian.
“The answer to your question is, yes, I believe parents should be allowed to do that.[force their underage girls to marry.- - gsdlover] I wouldn’t. I don’t think it is the correct course of action, but it is something that I think is none of my business.”
There are a lot of things that are none of our business, yet we have rules against them - like murder and rape because they infringe on another’s rights. Yet, you take the Taliban position of supporting a parent’s right - make that a man’s right - to force a child to marry. You totally disregard the right of the young woman. As a Christian, you realize that if forced to marry, then her only option “out” is divorce. Not a good thing. Hey, I’m sure not all members of the Taliban make their daughters marry someone against their will, but you can bet they all support the right to do so.
In this country, you are like the person who says “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but believe it should be legal for 9 months of pregnancy.”
You either support it or you don’t. You do.
Very Taliban-ish.
To say it is “none of our business” is a ridiculous position. It makes slaves of children and denies them their individual, God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There is a point at which government interference into the lives of families is intolerable, but there is also a point at which parental abuse is also intolerable. The wise person can see that there must be a balance and when we err to far in one direction or another we must make corrections.
To carry a principle to the point of allowing it to cause death of innocents makes an “ass” of being a principled person.
As a Christian, you realize that if forced to marry, then her only option “out” is divorce.
You either support it or you don’t. You do.
Some things are simpler than they appear while others are more complex, but they all come down to core principles.
I’m not talking about the constitution here. I’m talking about the bible’s instruction to believers. And it supersedes and precedes the constitution.
Parents’ rights, as regarding their own children, used to be broad. One logical reason is that parents, by their very nature, tend to look out for the benefit of their child.
The progressive American culture has been on a crusade to limit those rights for a very long time. It’s gotten us to the complaints most of us have here regarding our rights to even use corporal punishment. You and I were both brainwashed to see it as a good thing. I’ve stepped away from american culture (dumped TV in 1997) and returned the best I can to a biblical world view. My position is based on what the bible teaches about how we should raise our children and how we should serve the Lord. I would not choose who my child should marry, but under different circumstances I most certainly would.
And I think, beginning with the fallout from the 60’s, we’ve demonstrated that parents can choose better mates for their kids than the hormone ravaged kids can. Just sayin’.
Bottom line: I believe you come from an American humanist culture perspective and I come from a biblical perspective.
When parents demonstrate that they do not have the emotional and intellectual wherewithal to tend to their children’s well-being (as these two have done), then it is the duty of the state to act in loco parentis.
Well I consider it murder for a parent to allow their child to die from an easily curable malady.
It’s why the commandment, translated to English is “you shall not commit murder” rather than “you shall not kill”.
Does your biblical perspective allow for the keeping of human slaves?
Yes or no.
the wack-a-loons give all Christians a bad name
I’ve argued religion with a lot of “atheists” on the internet. The only ones they think are NOT wack-a-loons are the ones that are Christian in name only.
On a related note, I shut them down when I tell them the bible does not preach that those that do not accept Jesus go to eternal suffering. It turns out that is one of their main objections to Christianity, even though it is not biblical teaching.
Really. I have never heard of a Christian church that teaches not to get medical care, but just to believe.
I admit its a thorny question: at what point is government intervention legitimate? On the other hand, what society can allow parents to refuse medical treatment to seriously ill children? What kind of society lets them cite the constitutional protection of religion to do this? If Religious liberty can cited for this, then why not invoke it for, say, bombing a crowded public street in Boston?
However, if you are the mugger it is a different story.
Neglect is still inaction.
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.