[tsomer]

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.

[cuban leaf]

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?

---

Active vs passive. One has the right to watch a man get mugged and not take action. In fact, it happens all the time. Not that it’s right, but the government does not require one to help, though your neighbors might shun you if you could have easily prevented it.

However, if you are the mugger it is a different story.