Religous freedom versus Child neglect

[Zoii]

Should a religous practice be permitted to extend to actions, either direct or by ommission, that result in harm to a child.

Below are cases in example where medical treatment has been refused for the child, on the grounds of religous conviction

Most states allow religious exemptions from child abuse and neglect laws

 

[dogs4thewin]

Nope, adults are free to refuse medical treatment on religious grounds, but the law should REQUIRE them to seek and obtain treatment for their minor children and/or people who otherwise have no say in the matter ( unless it is addressed in a living will). Failure to do so should be met with law enforcement involvement including removal of the children from the home and maybe even incarceration for neglect/abuse, child endangerment and yes even involunary manslaughter if the child dies.

 

[samir]

Should a religous practice be permitted to extend to actions, either direct or by ommission, that result in harm to a child.

Not everyone agrees on what is harmful. Some liberals think Christian parenting methods are child abuse and harmful to children while I think liberals are harming their children with their modern parenting they learned from the psychobabblers (psychologists and so-called "mental health" "experts"). Generally, I believe the government should stay away and let parents decide what is best for their children unless the harm is severe and undisputed.

 

[Zoii]

Not everyone agrees on what is harmful. Some liberals think Christian parenting methods are child abuse and harmful to children while I think liberals are harming their children with their modern parenting they learned from the psychobabblers (psychologists and so-called "mental health" "experts"). Generally, I believe the government should stay away and let parents decide what is best for their children unless the harm is severe and undisputed.

What would be areas where you feel the government could overrule the religious practices of parents

 

[zephcom]

Should a religous practice be permitted to extend to actions, either direct or by ommission, that result in harm to a child.

Below are cases in example where medical treatment has been refused for the child, on the grounds of religous conviction

Most states allow religious exemptions from child abuse and neglect laws

No. What person in their right mind would be good with someone harming a child???

Adults should be given the final say on their medical treatment, up and including not getting medical treatment. Children are not prepared to handle that responsibility. That is -why- they have parents.

I have nothing against parents applying their religious beliefs along with proper medical care. I don't even mind if the parents go around telling people it was their religious beliefs and not the medical care that heal their child. But their legal responsibility to their children is to keep them alive and well. That should include seeking out and using the medical care available to them in our society.

 

[samir]

What would be areas where you feel the government could overrule the religious practices of parents

I'd prefer it never happen and would rather not list practices where I think the government should take away anyone's freedom. I knew a Christian whose child's leg was badly injured. He didn't have insurance and didn't want to lose his house paying for medical bills plus he had faith that God would heal him. His child's leg kept getting worse each day and his neighbors urged him to take him to the hospital but he refused. If someone had reported it, there's a good chance he would have been arrested, jailed, and his child put in a foster home. Luckily, no one reported him, God answered his prayers, and his child's leg was miraculously healed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A rational Christian would pray that God would guide the decisions of the doctors.
The Luke of Colossians 4:14 was a godly man and the "beloved physician", who would certainly have petitioned God for guidance in his profession as a healer. Of course as most doctors are necessarily atheists the patient's loved ones would be responsible for such prayers and petitions.

 

[zephcom]

I'd prefer it never happen and would rather not list practices where I think the government should take away anyone's freedom. I knew a Christian whose child's leg was badly injured. He didn't have insurance and didn't want to lose his house paying for medical bills plus he had faith that God would heal him. His child's leg kept getting worse each day and his neighbors urged him to take him to the hospital but he refused. If someone had reported it, there's a good chance he would have been arrested, jailed, and his child put in a foster home. Luckily, no one reported him, God answered his prayers, and his child's leg was miraculously healed.

So a Christian should value his house above his child's leg? The God I believe in could have 'miraculously' healed a child even if the child was being treated by a licensed medical practitioner.

The man endangered his child to protect his house. I guess it is easy to find his priorities.

 

[Zoii]

Examples in this include Christians who handle snakes and do not seek medical attention even with children, refusal to allow the administration of blood products even in life threatening circumstances, female genial mutilation, tattooing or scarring...in the name of their religion. If govt should stay out of religion, are you ok with all this?

 

[samir]

Examples in this include Christians who handle snakes and do not seek medical attention even with children, refusal to allow the administration of blood products even in life threatening circumstances, female genial mutilation, tattooing or scarring...in the name of their religion. If govt should stay out of religion, are you ok with all this?

If a child is likely to die, then I might not object but otherwise I believe in respecting other people's right to raise their children as they see fit. I'm not about to disrespect someone's religious or cultural views over tattoos or trivial scarring. I consider that arrogant. Those who support it are basically saying their culture is inferior and therefore they should impose their superior culture upon them.

 

[Zoii]

If a child is likely to die, then I might not object but otherwise I believe in respecting other people's right to raise their children as they see fit. I'm not about to disrespect someone's religious or cultural views over tattoos or trivial scarring. I consider that arrogant. Those who support it are basically saying their culture is inferior and therefore they should impose their superior culture upon them.

So whats your thoughts on female genital mutilation

 

[Earatha]

Should a religous practice be permitted to extend to actions, either direct or by ommission, that result in harm to a child.

Below are cases in example where medical treatment has been refused for the child, on the grounds of religous conviction

Most states allow religious exemptions from child abuse and neglect laws

Absolutely not.

Adults have the right to believe whatever they want. They can believe in faith healing, refuse blood transfusion, whatever. But a child is at the mercy of adults to make decisions for them, they cannot make their own medical choices and before a certain age aren't mentally capable of making informed choices. Too many kids have either died or been maimed for life because the parents had religious beliefs that prevented them from seeking medical help for their kids. Their parents should not be shielded from legal consequences for harming other people. Children are not property and they don't have a right to cause their kids that kind of harm.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's a tough call, but since (or if) the children can't decide for themselves, it seems sensible to me that the parents give consent for medical procedures. There is still room for courts to intervene if necessary in extreme cases.

 

[jayem]

Missouri, where I live, allows court-ordered medical treatment of a minor over a parent's religious objection. In the few cases with which I'm familiar, such orders have a narrow scope. They only suspend parental rights regarding medical decision-making, and they are time-limited. I was told by a pediatrician that in one case, Jehova's Witness parents actually appreciated it. He said that JW doctrine does not consider it a sin when blood is administered by a court order, against a Winess's will. Which takes the onus off the parents. This is just an anecdote, and I don't know if it's accurate.

 

[Audacious]

I think that your child should have the right to modern medical care, and I don't care what anyone's religion says about it. Your child's life and health are important enough that if a parent refuses to make the right decision for their health, the government should.

A child is not the property of the parent; rather, the responsibility of their care has been given to the parent until they are old enough, and neurologically developed enough, to make these decisions for themselves. In their role as parents/guardians, parents have no rights; the children are the ones with rights.

Also, governments should use child protective services (as the US does) to stop children from being neglected or otherwise abused. I don't care what your religion says about parenting, because the facts are much more important and relevant.

 

[zephcom]

If a child is likely to die, then I might not object but otherwise I believe in respecting other people's right to raise their children as they see fit. I'm not about to disrespect someone's religious or cultural views over tattoos or trivial scarring. I consider that arrogant. Those who support it are basically saying their culture is inferior and therefore they should impose their superior culture upon them.

There is no doubt in my mind that government should have a clearly defined line which parents can know and understand. For me, a child who is likely to die is not that line. By the time government has finished filling out the paperwork the child could easily be dead.

Children are people and not property. Government should not assume they can not be in charge of their medical care AND be able to willingly let the religious beliefs of someone else decide their medical care.

Once they reach adulthood they can do any tom fool thing they want with their health care. Until then, government has a role in protecting them from danger even if that danger comes from their parents.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

Examples in this include Christians who handle snakes and do not seek medical attention even with children

Something should be done, but dependent on the situation.

refusal to allow the administration of blood products even in life threatening circumstances

Okay.

female genial mutilation

Absolutely not and should be dealt with harshly.

tattooing or scarring...in the name of their religion

Should be frowned upon.

There is a line to be drawn by society. Some things, such as female genital mutilation and child sacrifice, just cannot be tolerated, even in the name of freedom of religion.

 

[Dave-W]

What person in their right mind would be good with someone harming a child???

There was a pentecostal church in Indiana back in the 1970s called "The Glory Barn" or the "Faith Assembly" pastored by Hobart Freeman. He taught that doctors were devils; and if you took your child to a hospital or doctor office, you and your child would both be condemned to eternity in hell.

I heard at least 100 people died (including many children) from just that one congregation, and there were sister congregations all over the US.

 

[Dave-W]

So whats your thoughts on female genital mutilation

I know that was not addressed to me, but I would like to reply anyway.

I would like to see any and all practitioners of said practice die a slow and painful death, before they can wreak their damage on anyone else.

 

[loveofourlord]

I'd prefer it never happen and would rather not list practices where I think the government should take away anyone's freedom. I knew a Christian whose child's leg was badly injured. He didn't have insurance and didn't want to lose his house paying for medical bills plus he had faith that God would heal him. His child's leg kept getting worse each day and his neighbors urged him to take him to the hospital but he refused. If someone had reported it, there's a good chance he would have been arrested, jailed, and his child put in a foster home. Luckily, no one reported him, God answered his prayers, and his child's leg was miraculously healed.

yeah and heard stories of kids in bed for months while the leg is infected, and years later had to get expensive surgery because in this case the family was christian scientists, or just believed in faith healing and wanted her to pray for it to be better,