It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jury Weighs Faith-Healing Death Case Against Girl's Dad

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman

The courts should also take this opportunity to have publishers of bibles immediately recall all copies in circulation and remove all references to the alleged power of praying to jesus.


I can understand your point, but that does seem a bit extreme to me. It amounts to censoring and would contradict free speech, in my opinion. Not to mention that would contradict people's right to believe in whatever flavor of religion they prefer. This man and others like him can believe whatever they like, the exception being when it causes the death of another person.




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
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.

This is not a case of this man "doing" something illegal. He was prayingl; exercising his religion.

I don't thiink there is a law that says you have to take a sick person to a doctor. there are only certain cases that have come up and gotten attention. And then some person in authority comes along and exerts action based on his opinion.

And where do you draw the line. How about the child who is sick, and does not appear to be very sick, but suddenly dies. Do his parents go to jail too?

Miraj
"quote"REPLY TO:
reply to post by OhZone

"Well, my religion says that I should get a revolver and play russian roulette with my son.

It's the right thing to do, and it pust your faith in god to stop the bullet, to the test.

But you don't have the right to tell me Im wrong, because it's my son. Right? "
****I really don't care.****

Ah yes, those mandatory vaccinations. If a parent refuses to vaccinate his/her child and the child get sick and dies, are you going to want to press charges of neglect or murder?

What that jury should do is reccommend that this guy spend time in "Religious Rehab". He needs to learn the hard truth about the rarity of God's miracles.

There are likely many such cases that no one ever hears about.
Unless something serious is done it will continue.

We have a problem and it should be fixed.
Just sending these people to jail does not solve the problem and it is not fair to the accused who is also a victim. He is a victim of a big misunderstanding and has proceeded in full faith that this was not only OK, but was the best thing to do.

It is sort of like leaving the road open when they know the bridge ahead has collapsed. The road looked so good......

The law is supposed to be based on logic, however what goes on in the court room is more often and appeal to emotion. No on can be logical and reasonable while charged up with emotion.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Your formatting is a bit messed up, it's hard to tell what you are quoting and what you are replying with. So if I respond to something as if you said it when you didn't, you'll have my apologies.



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.

This is not a case of this man "doing" something illegal. He was prayingl; exercising his religion.


Yes, he was exercising his religion. The problem is that in doing so he infringed upon his daughters right to live. The Constitution also says that we have "certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The fathers right to freedom of religion does not and cannot infringe on his daughter's right to live. He can believe whatever he likes as far as religion goes, and can practice it in whatever way he sees fit, so long as he isn't infringing on the freedoms of someone else. In this case he infringed so far over his daughters rights and freedoms that she died.


I don't thiink there is a law that says you have to take a sick person to a doctor.


You're right, there's not. But there are laws against neglect, abuse, murder, and manslaughter.


And where do you draw the line. How about the child who is sick, and does not appear to be very sick, but suddenly dies. Do his parents go to jail too?


There is a fairly large difference between someone who's child dies suddenly with no warning and someone who watches their child die for two weeks and refuses to seek medical attention for that child. So large of a difference in fact that to compare the too is laughable.


Ah yes, those mandatory vaccinations. If a parent refuses to vaccinate his/her child and the child get sick and dies, are you going to want to press charges of neglect or murder?


Depends. Are these vaccines proven to work? Does this parent seek medical care when their child gets sick because they didn't give them vaccines that have been proven to work? Or did they sit at the house and pray over them instead?

If the former, no. They may have been ignorant enough to not give their child a vaccine that would have saved them but they at least attempted to get care when the child got ill. If the latter, yes. Being ignorant enough to not get proven vaccines and then not seeking care when your child gets sick because of your ignorance is worthy of being charged with neglect at the least.


Just sending these people to jail does not solve the problem and it is not fair to the accused who is also a victim. He is a victim of a big misunderstanding and has proceeded in full faith that this was not only OK, but was the best thing to do.


Being ignorant is no excuse in today's world of information at your fingertips.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by moocowman

The courts should also take this opportunity to have publishers of bibles immediately recall all copies in circulation and remove all references to the alleged power of praying to jesus.


I can understand your point, but that does seem a bit extreme to me. It amounts to censoring and would contradict free speech, in my opinion. Not to mention that would contradict people's right to believe in whatever flavor of religion they prefer. This man and others like him can believe whatever they like, the exception being when it causes the death of another person.


Yes and no, I believe the bibles should be cencored/rated in the same manner as a movie EG PG 18.

We have to bear in mind the bibles contain "instructions" on misogyny, rape, racial hatred, homophobia, pedophilia, genocide, etc.

I appreciate the kids are weaned onto the hard stuff with baby jesus and noah and the animals. But when noahs sons have sex with dad, well I'd prefer to know whether these verses were not in the same book as my children may read.

I for one stand by everybody's right to believe what they wish, this however has no bearing on the bible instructions in relaion to the practice of medicine.

I don't know about where you live, but by law i cannot set myself up as a ju ju witch doctor without telling the public I am not a doctor and am not qualified in medicine.

Should I write a book encouraging people to take my snake oil to help their cancer, then my book has to carry a disclaimer and I am to advise the reader to continue with their medication.

As far as I'm concerned praying to jesus comes into the category of "alternative" (unproven) medicine. The bibles should carry a disclaimer stipulating that there is no evidence that praying to jesus has any benefit on health.

If people wish to believe that laying on of hands will sort out hemorrhoids then that up to them, but they can't go round saying it works without testable evidence, the same as any vitamin or supplement.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 





This is not a case of this man "doing" something illegal. He was prayingl; exercising his religion.


Sorry dude, the guy was found guilty the consequences of his actions were deemed illegal and whatever he was doing didn't work, so he was exercising his delusion, or he is just a murderer.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman

Yes and no, I believe the bibles should be cencored/rated in the same manner as a movie EG PG 18.

We have to bear in mind the bibles contain "instructions" on misogyny, rape, racial hatred, homophobia, pedophilia, genocide, etc.


Very true, but it's also important to keep in mind that many, if not most, people see the Bible as a piece of literature. Many of Shakespeare's works contained misogyny, racial hatred, pedophilia, genocide, patricide, etc., should they be censored and rated as well? I regard the Bible much the same way I do Shakespeare's plays. They are great literature and contain some important messages that are true regardless of the source, but I see neither as unadulterated truth. Perhaps it is my classification of them as similar that prevents me from being able to agree with you on this point?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Quoting Jenna:
“Yes, he was exercising his religion. The problem is that in doing so he infringed upon his daughters right to live. The Constitution also says that we have "certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The fathers right to freedom of religion does not and cannot infringe on his daughter's right to live. He can believe whatever he likes as far as religion goes, and can practice it in whatever way he sees fit, so long as he isn't infringing on the freedoms of someone else. In this case he infringed so far over his daughters rights and freedoms that she died.”

****And that is your opinion. Children are in the care and keeping of their parents. His “intent” was to have her get well. That word “intent” is important in law, but many emotionals ignore it.
As I pointed out something has to be done about the understandings in this regard. He thought that his daughter’s life was in good hands and that God would show up any minute to make her well.****

Jenna: “Depends. Are these vaccines proven to work? Does this parent seek medical care when their child gets sick because they didn't give them vaccines that have been proven to work? Or did they sit at the house and pray over them instead?

If the former, no. They may have been ignorant enough to not give their child a vaccine that would have saved them but they at least attempted to get care when the child got ill. If the latter, yes. Being ignorant enough to not get proven vaccines and then not seeking care when your child gets sick because of your ignorance is worthy of being charged with neglect at the least.”

****Have any vaccines been proven to work? If so, then you have nothing to worry about if during a pandemic your child associates with my unvaccinated child, do you?

Religion is a great disseminator of ignorance is it not? ****

****Oh yes, he was found guilty by a very emotional (incompetent to judge) jury Emotionalism has no place in the court room. The jury cannot be impartial if it is hyped up with emotion. I call just a mistrial. Likewise sobbing family members have not place in the court room attempting to influence the sentencing of any convicted.****






[edit on 3-8-2009 by OhZone]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 





Very true, but it's also important to keep in mind that many, if not most, people see the Bible as a piece of literature. Many of Shakespeare's works contained misogyny, racial hatred, pedophilia, genocide, patricide, etc., should they be censored and rated as well? I regard the Bible much the same way I do Shakespeare's plays. They are great literature and contain some important messages that are true regardless of the source, but I see neither as unadulterated truth. Perhaps it is my classification of them as similar that prevents me from being able to agree with you on this point?


I understand where your coming from, however it is wise to observe the mane difference between Shakespeare and the bibles.

The bibles are sold as "Factual" and their contents are indoctrinated into little children at a very early age.

The children are taught that "all" the characters were or are real, and the child will suffer immeasurably for not adhereing to the laws of one of the characters in these books.

Personally I have yet to hear of a child that has been terrified on a regular basis by the works of Shakespeare. I myself have never read any Shakespeare but have read bibles.

Truth surely is subjective, some see truth in music some hear it art, what is true for you may not be true for me. So any truth that may be found by me in the bibles may not be found by you.

So indeed perhaps you may not agree because you value all literature and would be hard pushed to take a negative view of such highly esteemed works as the bibles.

Many libraries contain acres of literature we may not like or may not want to have our children read. But the authors have every right to be read and I'm sure we agree upon this.

But when an author, who remains anonymous writes something that is designed to incite violence (physical or emotional) against other people, I question it's value and its' placement with children.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
And that is your opinion. Children are in the care and keeping of their parents. His “intent” was to have her get well. That word “intent” is important in law, but many emotionals ignore it.


Really? It's only my opinion that his daughter had the right to live? By virtue of having been born she was given that right. A parents rights only go so far with the line being drawn before the death of the child, not after.

Most children are in the care and keeping of their parents, until those parents show that they cannot be trusted not to neglect or abuse their own children. Then those children are removed from the neglectful or abusive home, just as this girl would have been had the police showed up before she stopped breathing.

Intent is important, but ignorance is still no excuse for neglect, abuse, or manslaughter.


Have any vaccines been proven to work? If so, then you have nothing to worry about if during a pandemic your child associates with my unvaccinated child, do you?




WHO|Measles mortality reduction
Measles deaths worldwide fell by 74% between 2000 and 2007, from an estimated 750 000 to 197 000. In addition, the Eastern Mediterranean region has cut measles deaths by a remarkable 90% — from an estimated 96 000 to 10 000 — during the same period, thus achieving the United Nations goal to reduce measles deaths by 90% by 2010, three years early.

The significant decline in measles deaths in the Eastern Mediterranean region was the result of intensified vaccination campaigns including in countries with hard-to-reach areas such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and the Sudan. In 2007, more than twice the number of children were immunized in the region through such campaigns as compared to 2006.


Umm... Yes, they've been proven to work. Some of the newest ones I don't think have been out long enough to verify their long-term effects. The MMR and other vaccines that have been around for over 20 years, yes they've been proven to work. That's why they're still in use.

It's not my child I'm worried will catch an easily preventable yet potentially deadly disease. It's yours and every other parent who refuses to vaccinate their children even though most of them have been vaccinated and turned out perfectly fine. It's all of you that I'm worried about. Heaven forbid it should ever happen, but if it was your child that died from one of these preventable diseases I highly doubt you'd be so glad you skipped the vaccines.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join