So now the church is the one that forbid the transfusion. The church is the one that came into the room and killed that boy. JW is now classed with child killers. Your extremist views and hatered for religion is nauseating. Come up with something more substantial.

Please differentiate what a parent is allowed to force (or some would like to call it indoctrinate) their children to do. You have gone to say "understand that a child has to have things forced on them for thier own good". What do you approve, exactly to force (or as some would say indoctrinate) their children to do? How do you determine what is good for the child and what is bad. Besides your complete lack of respect of religion, why is it so bad?


In your opinion, sure. In mine, it isn't. So what makes you right and me wrong?

Challenging someone's views doesn't make one confrontational...

By "go" I assume you mean at what age do I think a child can develop his own religious beliefs, whether accepting his parents', replacing it with another belief system, or going agnostic/atheist, cuz you can't possibly have any religious values in the womb.

Well, I really, really doubt younger than 13. This is obviously another arbitrary age. I don't think there is a magical age that acts as an "on" switch for religious beliefs. I think the courts would have to determine competency. If the child isn't competent, side with health professionals. If the child is found competent and his wishes for/against medical treatment go against his parents beliefs the court should honor want the child wants, even if the child says he identifies with his parents' religion.

Why shouldn't JW bear some of the culpability for this? Does the catholic church bear some culpability for the child molesters in it? That isn't even part of thier doctrine, unlike the JW stuff, and that doctrine killed this boy. If he were not a JW, he would be alive today. He wouldn't have even made the news.

I have a problem with it when a doctrine is a 100% likely to kill a child. why shouldn't they be culpable, to a smaller degree than the aunt, yes, but still a "kill". At least the Catholic church, at some point, condemned the behavior that harmed children- I don't see JWs begging for forgiveness for a doctrine that set the stage for this kid to die.

It is easy. No JW= live kid. JW= dead kid. Pretty simple math really.

Thier nearly insane dogma against blood transfusions killed this kid, as, at some point, they indoctrinated him into believing it as well. And a sick 14 year old from a troubled home is VERY easy to indoctrinate. In fact, we call them "at risk" kids for a reason.

And tim- there is a very easy way to decide how old is old enough to make those kind of life altering, or in the case of this kid- life ending decisions- just ask yourself this- is this kid old enough, and have good judgement enough, to make a decision on his own, to say, take off across the country in a car with a 50 year old man and have sexual relations with him?

I am sure you would say "of course not"- however- you may go "eww" when the boy is 18- but hey- his decision, he is an adult.

It is not so difficult to decide what the age of consent should be, and how old you should be before making adult decisions.

Ok, are we back to the case of this thread, or the ones that have been created by the debaters here. What makes you think that just because you don't believe the same that the parents do, they are wrong for following the teachings of their religion? Seriously, you have to see that just because you disagree, doesn't make your views any better than theirs. Yes, their child will live if you get to be decision maker of the world, but that doesn't make it necessarily right to force your views on them. In JW church, you would be killing his soul by forcing the transfusion on him. I know that doesn't mean anything to you, but it means everything to them, and you have to respect their beliefs.


What I was referring to is whether or not saving the child's life by overruling the parents decision begins only after the child leaves the womb?

The same reason we don't allow sacrifice of the firstborn as religious freedom- because the decision is being made on a person that is incapable of making that decision on his own- same as any other kid.

I do know that several religions believe in beating a child, to the point it would rise to child abuse in many courts- but we don't allow that either.

If the parents are Rastafarians THEY can't even participate in thier religion- much less thier children. ( I do recognize you don't believe this is right either- I happen to agree, but I want all drugs legal anyway- has nothing to do with religion)

You are MOSTLY free to raise your kids as you see fit, as long as you don't deliberately harm them (abuse) or with hold needed items from them (neglect) -

that is pretty much an altruism throughout societies throughout the world- some have much younger ages of consent- but the idea that children need protection from harm, even thier parents sometime, is pretty much universally accepted altruism, throughout human history.

Among some of the worst abuses in history to children, religion is involved, of one type or another.

And saying you should be able to harm your child because of your beliefs crosses that line from freedom of religion into criminal behavior.

It is just this time, the bad guys won.

Yes, I am okay with abortion- I am okay with late term abortions when it involves the health of the mother to the point of permanent damage or death.

I don't believe there is a sentient being in a zygote or blastula, sorry.

Ah, abortion-izing the debate eh? Yes, it begins after birth, since most of the time you're talking about a situation where you can't avoid affecting two lives. Invest in artificial wombs.

Comparing the baby raping of priests and the faithful following of teachings, that have not been found to be illegal is quite a stretch, don't you think?

At what point did we learn that his aunt indoctrinated the boy? You know for a fact that he was indoctrinated after he was removed from his parents and then classified as at risk? Or that he was at risk at all? Please share your insight with us. How do you know that he wasn't raised as a JW from birth, had made his own determination based on what he learned?

In fact, if he was at risk, don't you think the judge would not have ruled that he was a mature minor? Don't you think that if he was at risk that the judge would have intervened? I know you deal with mentally ill everyday and you have seen this many times, but you didn't see this case. You are only assuming you know that he was indoctrinated after he was determined an at risk youth. In fact you assume he was an at risk youth. Any evidence from this case?


No, not changing the subject, just following your lead. The case is about a 14 year old, you bring up the 6 year old. So only after the child is born, can we as a state interfere with the decisions of keeping a child alive. Before the birth, the child has no rights to be protected.


Any examples to the religious claims that you listed? Just curious.

By the way, call it a zygote or blastula all you want. It is still a child, and killing an unborn child is still wrong. Who is there to protect the child in that situation?

Per SCOTUS and/or, if Roe is overturned, per any states passing pro-abortion laws assuming the feds don't interfere. Anything else?

Just saw this response to CR:


Back up. If a Jehova's Witness woman needs a blood transfusion to either save herself and/or the life of or her fetus should her religious views be ignored because she's pregnant?

Non Sequitur Alert!

Are you saying it’s wrong to terminate a pregnancy before birth, but it’s hunky-dory if a parent allows a six-year-old to succumb to death because their religion dislikes the treatment? Please enlighten us further. Please.

My what a fine pickle you have got yourself into on this one

I am very curious as to how you will answer BOF's question, this ought to be quite good,

And seriously- you don't know the history of various religious groups various atrocities to non-believers, and believers alike? Hugenauts anyone?

How about Carthage and child sacrifice? Or aztec? Or honor killings in the middle east? Lynchings in the south in the name of religion? Not to mention the entire history of slavery in the US was enforced as "god's will" and used passages in the bible condoning slavery?

Don't think the server is big enough to list them all there dude.

You are putting an awful lot of weight on the religious aspect of making this decision:
a. "The state should stay out of the decision-making process because a religious belief motivated the decision." There are lots of problems implementing this - you are asking the state to rule on the validity and sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. Who's to say that any other decision-making process (say, for example, the abortion) isn't motivated by religion? Maybe some woman's interpretation of religion motivates her to have an abortion because she isn't married, or isn't capable of supporting kids, or just isn't into having a kid at the moment? Are you going to call that woman's "religious motivation" invalid because it doesn't fall in line with mainstream Christian holdings? Also, are you saying that a person's decision-making powers are less valid when they don't factor religion into their decision, thus allowing the state to intervene? Really?
b. "Now, if the family was able to establish that the kid wasn't really JW, and the gaurdian influenced the decision on behalf of her own belief but not necessarily the childs, then that creates an issue." OK, so you are saying that the courts have to establish, in an evidentiary hearing, that this 14-year-old kid may or may not believe fully in his family's religion, and factor that into their decision to intervene or not? Is the guardian's decision to withhold treatment a good one if the kid is a believer but a bad one if he's a doubter?

Religion only gums up the issue, because (among other things) it offers no consistency. Pull the feeding tube, or keep it in. "God, please save my baby!" or, "Let him die, it's God's will." I recently saw a documentary about a pretty religious Christian family that had sextuplets. The mother was unable to conceive naturally, so she had a bunch of in vitro embryos implanted in her uterus. When asked why they disregarded the doctor's advice to abort all but one or two embryos (the standard practice, since more than that are seldom viable), the woman said that it was God's will, and we should let nature takes it's course. But, since she was unable to conceive naturally, wasn't it God's will that she not have babies at all?

So I argue that the state's decision on whether or not to intervene should not take religion into account at all. It's too much of a wild card. Were you to consider the validity of these JW beliefs, you would be, in effect, affording more rights to religious believers that you would to nonbelievers. Meanwhile, the state's best interests (keeping their population healthy and alive) are barely taken into account.

Oh, no! BoF and CR have me in a corner. What ever shall I do? I have been duped yet again by those two! I should run and hide and never show my face again!!

Maybe I should clarify my position. When someone has an abortion because they had sex and now decide that they don't want to take responsibility so they just kill the baby, that is wrong. Not because my bible says, but because that is killing the child because the adult is irresponsible. If, in the example that was thrown in my face that a JW refused a transfusion and it risked either her life or the baby's, I would respect that. Refusing treatment to honor one's belief is something that must be respected. Terminating a pregnancy just because it would be inconvenient at this point in my life, or because I don't want to have kids is being irresponsible, IMHO. The state can't just jump in and control the lives of people just because the general public doesn't believe in the same thing.

So dude go ahead and run with all of your rediculous extremist thoughts of honor killings in a completely different culture and part of the world that we have nothing to do with, a period of history that is long over and cultures that have been long gone. Since you are so thoroughly educated in all historical events with religions that have only done evil to the world, please share with us. We minions apparently need your enlightenment since you imply that you know more than us. I am very impressed with your extensive knowledge.

What I find most entertaining is that the topic of this thread is no longer being debated by you. Why on earth would that be? Do you always bring up things that are distantly related, if at all to get your point across? This debate is about a 14 year old boy in Washington that took what he had learned in his life and made a decision that his guardian and a judge agreed with. Some how we are now debating whether or not religion is the root of all evil in the world. Last I checked, debating religion is against the rules here, but I might be mistaken.



If there was a religion that determined if she wasn't capable of supporting kids, or can determine if she wasn't into having a kid, I would be interested in seeing those teachings. Is there a religion that demands that the woman abort a pregnancy if unmarried? If so, I would be intereted in seeing those teachings as well. Hypotheticals are great, but not factual.

As far as the state determining validity and sincerity of one's beliefs, only witnesses can do so. Like I pointed out in a previous post, if there was any objection due to the boy's actual beliefs, that was not presented. If a family member or close friend can provide factual evidnece that he was not a practicing JW, then there would be issues. No one person can determine the validity of the religious claim, but if it were invalid, plenty of people could disprove it.


If the kid's biological parents presented evidence that he wasn't a follower. So in other words, if the kid was not a member of any JW church or a follower, but the aunt was and she refused to treat him for her beliefs and not the beliefs of his, then yes, that would be a problem. That would be forcing a belief on someone else, which is why we have the First Amendment-to protect people from others forcing their beliefs (either pro or against religion) on other people.


Not necessarily giving more rights to religious beleivers than nonbelievers. In the United States, you can butcher unborn babies for any reason at all. This is something that the religious right feels violate the rights of the child. So are we giving more rights to nonbelievers in that case? Not necessarily. If the state disregards a persons religion and forces them to go against that beleif, it is a direct violation of their first amendment right protecting them from the state " prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I started a thread about proposed constitutional amendments if we had another constitutional convention. I would be interested in seeing how one would propose how to change the constitution to support your argument.

My question is more specific - What say you about the state forcing a 14 yro minor to undergo the already referenced procedure?



By the same distorted logic I imagine you would say the judge was an accomplice? Oh heck, let's dispense with any semblance of rationality - that judge killed that boy as surely as if he put a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger! In fact, I'll bet he's a JW-lover that child killer. Problem is, why hasn't the legal system done anything about it? No matter, it's not fodder for Mr. Hyperbole.

You are way out on the fringe, C-Ram. You are welcome to stake that claim however. Ironically, you were instrumental in changing my mind. The force of much or your argument is compelling. It's too bad that scratching the surface though reveals so much ill-will and rancor. I wish it were otherwise.

I will always exhibit rancor, ill will and temper when a child dies needlessly, and I really don't care if it is "extremist" to anyone- a kid is killed needlessly here. He wasn't a reprobrate, lost kid that gang-bangs and slings crack. He was just an innocent kid that was allowed to kill himself over no good reason.

Yes, I have no problem forcing a blood transfusion on a 14 year old. I have no problem forcing medical treatment on ANY person under 16 years of age, and most under 18.

I thought I posted that already- but just to be clear- I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE STATE FORCING A LIFE SUSTAINING NECCESARY PROCEDURE ON AN INCOMPETANT ADULT OR ANY MINOR.

One of the main pillars of freedom for libertarians or the libertarian minded is that CONSENTING ADULTS OR COMPETENT ADULTS have a free will to choose what they want to do with thier bodies or property, as long as no one is DIRECTLY harmed, and the state should NOT be allowed to intervene.

Also within that philosophy of the love of freedom and liberty is to define a competent adult or minor, who IS NOT responsible for thier behavior (directly) or able to make responsible decisions regarding thier own bodies and lives.

It has been proven that they just are not capbable of making adult decisions of that magnitude-

and yes, that judge has blood on his hands as far as I am concerned, and hope he is tormented for the rest of his life, and has problems living with himself.

I certainly would.

If, when he is cancer free and 18, he wants to throw his life away- I really have no problem with that- that is the manner of freedom in a free state. But kids are NOT adults and should not be allowed to make these decisions at that age EVER.

ST got all a-twitter-pated that I would mention honor killings, genital mutilation and other atrocities that religions around the world demand of thier followers.

I can not see the difference between an honor killing of a 14 year old girl for religious reasons and allowing a 14 year old to die by withholding life sustaining treatment for religious reasons, they are both just as dead, for the same reasons- gawd told them so.

Why is it "no good reason"? Because you say so?


That is the issue though. What right does the state have to step in and force the family to let something that goes completely against their religious beleifs? What right do you and the state have to trample over their religious freedom? Why is what you say as a bad reason wrong? Because you say it is? How do you know that the teachings of JW are wrong? I am not saying they are right, but how do you know they are wrong and that those that follow that faith should bow down to what you think is right?


Again, I ask you, what makes your opinion on the matter of higher regard than those that are actually involved and have some faith in something? Again, I will point out that the intent of an honor killing of a 14 year old girl is to kill her. The intent of not taking the blood transfusion was not to ensure the boy's death, but to ensure the purity of his soul.

The double edged sword of freedom is anarchy and the strong ruling the weak.


You have to balance the freedom of all against the safety of all- a libertarian doesn't want to end law enforcement, they just want to eliminate laws that harm no one but the end user.

In the case of children- the parents rights to thier beliefs ends where the life of the child is endangered. This is not extremist- this is a human "universal" if you will- it is anti-survival to not protect children from harm.

ALL parents religious beliefs and rights can be recognized for the end user- the adult- but when a child is needlessly endangered for those rights- those rights come to a screeching halt.

There is no real difference between child sacrifice and what we have here. the child was LITERALLY sacrificed for a belief. child sacrifice is not and should never be a "freedom of religion" issue.

I admit I am conflicted on the matter of abortion for several reasons- I would get into them on an abortion thread, but I don't think this is an issue here- we are talking a 14 year old boy that was sacrificed on the alter of a religion. the only thing different between this and child sacrifice in the past is the means of death.

Parents should and do have a right to raise thier children as they see fit AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT ABUSED OR NEGLECTED- in fact, it is interesting that they removed this child from his home, and his parents rights terminated. How could whatever they were doing be worse than what happened to him anyway- death?

they probably removed that child for good reason- it is damned hard to terminate a parents rights by the state- as it should be- you have to have, practically, an "orgy of evidence" to permanently remove custody.

but in the end, he died anyway, because of a very, very silly religious belief, which, in this case, for this child, was deadly.

Face to face, i will debate and be reasonable and reason with anyone- until the point of action is needed to save a child. Then I will get all extremist on you, if that is what is needed, to save that child. I don't care what the law says, what other poeple say- if the child is in eminent harm, I will act, and pay the consequences later.

I am not talking knee-jerk reaction here, I would need all the facts I can have. Judges are as human as anyone, and they make horrid mistakes of judgement, all the time, just like myself and anyone else. This mistake, however, cost someone thier life, and a child at that. Were I there, and knew about it, I might have kidnapped him myself, forced the transfusion on him, and done my time in jail, knowing the kid can be alive to complain, instead of dead in a casket, with some policy wonks debating finer points of the law on the internet while discussing how the state allowed a religious based suicide.

You bring up the parent's, or in this case the aunt's religious freedoms. Doesn't the boy have religious freedoms as well? You call the belief silly, JW followers call it God's Word. If this boys goal in life was to follow the teachings of his religious leaders so that he may find salvation after the second coming of Christ, forcing the transfusion could have done an immense amount of damage to his mental stability and health. It is hard to explain to a non believer, but if one's ultimate goal goes beyond the living world, life and death are minor events in the aspect of everlasting life. You may find it rediculous, but millions agree that it is more important to follow Gods Will than to succomb to the beliefs of a non believer. By forcing this boy to have the transfusion, though well intentioned, everything he knows and understands will come crashing down on him as an utter failure to his God. I can only see this as being more harmful. He will live in distress, knowing that no matter what he does going forward, he has fallen from grace and will forever be dead after Jesus comes to judge the dead. Nothing is more petrifying to a devout follower than knowing that salvation is not attainable. You may find this to be brainwashing and outright looney, but to some, it is the basis for which they live their lives.

This should have nothing to do with the differing values you seek to place on our youth not to mention the dubious task of rank ordering their value. How is it that "a reprobate, lost kid that gang-bangs and slings crack" is more worthy of such a demise?



Actually, what you said was,


You said nothing about the the state forcing the procedure but rather paralleled your efforts as a father when giving your daughter "some new veggies". You went on to claim that you as a father would force such a transfusion but again said nothing of the state. I'm glad you clarified your stand, though I think your caps button is stuck!


I would be willing to bet many of our European neighbors differ with you regards what age a person becomes a competent adult. My, are you a product of your culture! By the way, could you link me up wtih the article that proves at 18 an individual becomes "competent"?


It's amazing this man has escaped justice! Gee, I'm glad you're not king! You remind me also of what it must have been like some thousand years ago when the church had the final say on so much. You know, "we know what is correct and you don't"! Yuch, absolute power...


But what if the girl wants an honor killing? You don't think she could find ways to circumvent the law? There is one sliver of truth where you and I are now in agreement. There should be a law against honor killings as well as the denial of certain life-saving procedures for minors. But what are you going to do when the girl seeks out a "back alley" honor killing and what about the boy who wrestles with you when you try to pin him on the operating table for a transfusion? I guess the girl is luckier in that you can't monitor her 24/7 though I do feel sorry for the poor boy who is pinned down by King Cruise's minions...

If a kid circumvents the law- lord knows I did a few times when I was younger- - then that is just tragic- when an adult helps them circumvent or helps them do something wrong, then that is unethical and immoral on the part of the adult. That is why we have laws against 14 year olds taking off with 50 year old men.

There are some pretty spot on neuro and psyche test batteries that you can determine competency with- we have had alot of practise at this point in the criminal justice system- right now, it is arbitrarily pretty much set at 21 for "full adult" status. Even an incompetant MR with an emotional and cognitive age of 6 but a physical age of 18 can't stay on an adult unit, with some exception until 19, in my state.

I wish we would have to administer these tests to every kid over 14 personally, I think it would save us alot of headaches- barring that, around 17 or 18 you get the brain fully developed, and you have pretty much passed physically into true adulthood, your brain is as developed as it is going to get- you continue to mature, of course, and you learn from your experiances after that- but the brain is still growing and developing into the late teens.

but at 14, you aren't even close to an adult, really, sometimes they walk, talk and act like an adult, but close scrutiny shows that they are still child-like in thier decision making process, and usually don't understand the ramifications very well of what they do- they know consequences and such, but there is a HUGE gap in development at that point to full adult status.

So I am pretty comfortable with the fairly abirtrary number of 18 as an adult, 17 for some things, though I think it is wrong not to give them full privileges with thier enlistment into the military or becoming 18.

As far as the "gang banger"- all I am saying this boy is a complete innocent here, and it is easy to find sympathy for him, he is not a hardened street thug that is hard to find sympathy for, you don't have to dig very deep to find your humanity for an ill kid.

I can't link you up to an arbitrary age of development, 18 is pretty arbitrary- but I do know that 14 is WAY off.

I do think most religion is pretty silly- but they cross the line at children being sacrificed or martyered for thier beliefs, like happened here. They can argue over intangibles for the rest of thier natural life when they are adults- but no kid deserves to be sacrificed for thier beliefs.

If the girl wants an "honor killing" - in the end, she may be succesful, same with the boy- if he wants to commit suicide, there is usually very little chance that you can prevent that, even in a closed hospital unit, some poeple succesfully kill themselves.

Difference is, we don't aid and abet thier efforts. We don't condone thier efforts as part of thier religiouis structure, no matter the religion (we had this ethical problem ourselves once, with a Hindu daughter that wanted to throw herself on her dad's funeral fire- we saved her until stable, and, after some reflection, decided that perhaps now is not the time to join her father ) - but at no time did we condone her religious belief and conviction that it is okay for her to kill herself, no matter what her belief system was or what was "culturally okay"-

The saddest part is the state removed this kid to prevent harm to him, and then killed him, very sad indeed. I mean, why remove him from the home so you can let him die?

I can't get too far into brain developement and cognizence without being too far off topic- so here are some starter links:

http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles...28/Feature1.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan31.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...views/todd.html

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040508/bob9.asp

Actually, the right to an abortion is one of the central pillars of faith of the Church of JohnfrmCleveland. So is my religion invalid? Less valid than that of Jehovah's Witnesses? Should this country simplify and just recognize the Big Two - Protestantism and Catholicism?

My point is that if you are going to factor in religious beliefs (as you have suggested in earlier posts), you have to include EVERY religion, crazy or not, or else you are 1) making judgments about the validity of certain religions over others (aren't Catholic beliefs more valid than those of Jehovah's Witnesses, since there are way more Catholics?) and 2) you are giving religious citizens more rights than you are nonbelievers. In your world, a nonbeliever would have one less valid reason for refusing treatment when compared with this JW.

No, we (the United States) are not giving more rights to nonbelievers in your abortion scenario. Rather, the believer's church, should she freely choose to follow their rules, is taking one off the table. The state affords the same right to an abortion to both believers and nonbelievers.

Another pillar of faith of the Church of JohnfrmCleveland is that I am allowed - nay, obligated by my faith - to kill all the infidels who do not share my beliefs. Does your First Amendment protect all of my religious "rights"? Of course not. In this country, people are free to worship as they please WITHIN THE CONFINES OF OUR SOCIETY'S STRUCTURE. The state is not prohibiting people from worshipping as they please, it is simply implementing the proper balance between order and complete freedom (anarchy, if you will). If you want to live with the many benefits our secular society brings, you have to fit in (and it's really not all that hard). The Constitution does not need to be changed - strict constructionists simply have to realize that they are incorrect and their method of interpreting the Constitution is unworkable. The rest of us think the Constitution works just fine.

I would be happy to respect the church of JohnfrmCleveland if you can show me any type of structure, teachings, organization and principle, among other things. Otherwise, you are just making no sense.


Ah, yes, she takes one off the table, but the baby on the other hand, no one is there to protect the baby's rights. The baby is getting less rights. Anyone looking out for the baby's best interest?


Again, make fun all you want, but you would have a hard time finding anyone honoring your made up religion since you only do so to patronize those that hold a certain value and validity to someone's belief system. Too bad our government agrees with me.

I had a wonderful post that I put up earlier on this thread. It seems that Scubatim didn't read it...

You ask for principle, structure, and teachings? The church of Satan has all three. By you definition, a member of the Church of Satan, in a similar situation, would have been eligible to end his own treatment, in order to fulfill his belief that blood transfusions lost his favor in the eyes of Er'Jaklash'Krulaah.

But this is not true. Particularly in the rural midwest, this young man would have been slapped down, forced into his treatment, and then, perhaps, sent to one of the nice, padded rooms at the local insane asylum. Admittedly, this is more a matter of societal inflence than it is religious, but this is my point; in the midwest, radical bible-thumping christianity has become so closely entwined witht the local culture, that the courts grant them leave to do almost anything, compared to their dubious counterparts. What I'm seeing here, is a court system that is only giving the secular world more reason to spit upon religion, moderate, and radical alike.

I appologize for not responding to you right away, I will pay closer attention to your posts in the future and make sure that I respond immediately, sir!

Ok, so you take a region of the country and assume that this is the truth. I assume you live in rural midwest. Please tell me that you do because as I have pointed out in many other threads, I live in Des Moines, IA. I lived in an unincorporated town in Nebraska called Odessa. (It's just west of Kearney for those of you seeing how rural that is), I have family in a farm town in York County. My wife's family is from Ackley Iowa. If you want to check, most of where we come from is rural. More so than what you were probably envisioning when you wrote your post. Yes, people would look at satanists with disgust, however we aren't in the old west where everyone rides horses down main street carrying six shooters on our hips. We don't have lynchings, and we don't throw people in padded rooms for difference of culture. We do have courtrooms, jurys and judges that do the same thing they do in 'dem dar big cities like New York. If you can prove that this is common practice in rural midwest, please, I beg you to do so. In all actuality, I think the midwest is much more accepting than one might think. Yes, we have roots in religion, but we are much more compassionate than you would like to illustrate. We aren't living like those that are depicted in the movie "Children of the Corn". You know, we do have electricity! If you can come up with current trends that counter what I have said, again, I beg you to share them.

As far as if the family this thread is written about were satanists, I would still respect their decision. We can go on forever in this thread with hypotheticals, but the fact still remains that the judge excersized his power within the guidlines of the law, and in my opinion, the law is right and just. As far as the case of this thread, and the basic issues within it, I have to agree with the family, and the judge.

You are right; I do not live in the rural midwest. I do not have the personal experience that you do. Alternatively, you, as an inhabitant of that region, might not be a reliable source, since we are all quick to defend the moral values of our neighbors.

So...an impasse? No.

The boy was too young to be able to exercise his freedom of belief with responsibility. His parents are partly to blame; after all, they weren't even there, when he died. His aunt as well, because no matter what you believe, the safety, and longevity of your charge should always supercede other, baser motivations.

You say that we should back away from hypotheticals; I say we should examine them more closely. The general consideration of Satanists as clinically insane does not happen on a regional basis, after all; it is nationwide. A perfectly normal, working-class salaryman, is almost sure to be fired, or surreptitiously "removed to another division" should he possess beliefs that are perverse, at least when compared with the standards of his peers.

Christianity has an advantage in the courts. As do Judaism, and Islam, simply because people are far too frightened of "upsetting the delicate religious status-quo" to prosecute them properly. Cults, even well-established cults, like the Church of Satan, and the New Wiccans, are not afforded nearly as much legal leeway as their peers.

The government has to curb this radicalism at some point. And, yes, I do believe that allowing yourself to die a slow, wasting death counts as radicalism. Call me anti-theistic. This is not simply for the secularists; highly-publicized media circuses like these, only serve to hurt the reputation of mainstream christianity elsewhere. The JWs, the Seventh Day Adventists...their extremism does nothing but harm the greater religion of which they are but a small, insignificant part.

My question to you is this: Do you have anything to substantiate any of the claims you have made, or are they simply your opinion. If I am prone to defending my region, supply facts to support your claim. You have made several claims in regards to "cults", such as the Church of Satan, New Wiccans. Are these really cults? Anything substansive to debate the issues in this thread, or to support your claims so that we can actually debate facts instead of debating personal feelings or opinions?

I'm not making fun, I'm trying to prove my point, using exaggeration to aid in illustration. In this country, people do NOT ave an unfettered right to do whatever they please, no matter what the consequences, just because they claim that their religion says they can. And besides, my example wasn't completely crazy - there are plenty of Muslims out there who think along those lines these days, as you are probably aware. But even they realize that the First Amendment isn't going to protect them if they start killing infidels.

You obviously don't have any interest in debating the issue in the thread. Also putting quotes around the name you call someone doesn't automatically make it ok to start namecalling. Good luck with your religion. Get things up and running, and try to get recognized as a religion that is obligated to kill other people. Until you decide to join us in reality, and would like to debate the topic of the thread, I find no point in wasting any more time with you. Good day, sir.

If someone is name-calling, click the report button at the bottom of their post. I wouldn't read quotes alone as indicators of someone's intent to flame, but that's just me.

Well you've made up your mind about acceptable religious practices and whatnot. I'm just curious about one more scenario. What if one parent is a JW and the other parent is a nondenominational Christian? Who should the judge side with in this scenario and why?

Okay- I don't see where you were insulted heere at all- but I will move on anyway.

1) Should every religion have unrestricted rights to worship as they so choose? Should they be able to sacrifice thier own children, say, on an alter of Baal?

2) Do we need to define relgion- state sanction and recognize what is a religion and what is a crazy dude with a knife? For instance, if I started a new church tomorow- would you say that it is too new to be called a religion? This is interesting to me because this is the way the Roman's determined a new province was to be forced to worship the Emporer/godhead. For instance- the Jews were allowed to worship as they saw fit, because the religion was 'ancient and established" but Christianity, because it arose from Judiasm, was a "cult and superstition"- they had to either remain true to thier home land religion or convert to the Roman gods- etc etc.

If anyone doubts the validity of this statement, it does happen. I know a man who says he's not a religious person. His wife is a Jehovah's Witness. It will be interesting to see how scubtim handles this little thorny question. Me thinks Lesly has put you in a box even if you won't or don't acknowledge it.

BTW: I've searched CR last several posts and can't find any place he's called another member a name in quotation marks. You might need to be more specific scubatm.

Are you referring to my use of the phrase "religion snob"? Don't take that personally. But how else could I put it that would better point out your apparent double standard when it comes to accepting religions? I've tried, as have others, to point out in the last few posts that you are obviously taking some religions more seriously than others, and you would have the judge in this case do the same. Well, the United States does not have an official religion (yet), so that would be discrimination. It's a crucial point.

I think I'm sticking pretty close to the thread, too. The judge went the way I wanted him to, but for the wrong reasons. His consideration of the kid's religious beliefs to justify his decision is the crux of the debate. We are still on that point.

And what if the boy was 17 and a Jew, his mother was a devout catholic and the father was an athiest? I am really getting tired of the "what ifs". We can what if until we are all blue in the face. I bet you have plenty of other "what ifs" lined up depending on how this one person here answers your questions that don't pertain to the facts of this thread. This is how these threads get so far off topic. Seriously, the Church of JohnfromCleveland? I feel like I am talking to a bunch of 12 year olds with that line of thinking. I have had similar level conversations with my friends kids. "and what if, and what if, and what if." Yawn. I expect more.

All of these other scenarios would be left up to the family to decide. I have maintained all along that the state must stay out of the families decisions, especially when religion is involved. I don't care how many different theologies you try to involve, how many boxes you try to trap me in, and how many of you try to work each other up to try to topple me in this debate. I don't know of any recognized, organized religions in this country that require human sacrafice.

Actually, the name calling I was referring to what JohnfromCleveland calling me a religion snob. I don't know how the confusion started, but I meant to direct that to him. Thanks for the advice on the report button, Lesly, but I trust the Mods will step in when violations deserve such intervention.
[quote=JohnfromCleveland]
No, I'm making perfect sense. Say I had enough of the trappings of a church to merit tax-exempt status in this country (not all that difficult, and not at all dependent on being "mainstream," as Akalae has pointed out) - now I get your respect? Now my religion carries some weight with this judge? You, sir, are a "religion snob." You think your way is right because your religion has big buildings and books and bake sales, while my humble religion has only a few followers. Well, every religion started out small, with the rest of the world thinking they were crazy. Jesus wasn't an instant hit, you know.

That's a shame, because it really doesn't matter what you get tired of on this board. People don't post to please you scubatim.

In the real world there are marriages where the two parents might not agree on treatment. Then what?