Careful enough to consider rare scenarios like handicaps? Are you serious? Handicaps are so rare that you applaud them for considering it? I am impressed that you finally have come up with some research, but to say that since religion isn't mentioned in this state code that it can't be used as a defense? Really? Where does it say that it can't be used?

Ok, so since I didn't say consider religion every time, maybe you should re-read my posts! When religion applies, you can not just let the state dismiss religion. That is discrimination on the basis of religion, also know as illegal in the United States, no matter what court is in session. We do have this annoying little document called the Constitution, and in it, the Bill of Rights. I don't care how much someone disagrees with or finds lunacy with organized religion. The Bill of Rights specifically seperates the church and state, meaning the state can't control someone from living their lives following the teachings of their church. I better include what I have stated earlier before your ramblings of what ifs come back. If the religion fits the definition that has been established and it does not violate any existing laws. And yes, I still yawn at your seemingly endless list of rediculous "what ifs", especially since you still have not entertained my one "what if"


First, yes you are. Second, is our society secular? Last I checked, there were dozens of religions and millions of religious people. I think we are a very religious society. Finally, the state can't contour anything about religion, given that the religion doesn't violate any existing laws such as rape and murder. I would question your law school allowing the violation of the church/state seperation. Sounds fishy to me.

According to the world fact book, only 10% of this country does not practice a religion.

That doesn't sound very secular to me, does it to you? If you consider our nation's population to be approximately 300,000,000, only 30,000,000 are not religious, but 270,000,000 are.

You want to challenge my law school's "allowing the violation of the church/state seperation (sic)", whatever that means? I'm going to interpret that statement to mean that you know how to interpret the First Amendment, but my Constitutional Law professor does not. That is a very long limb you have climbed onto there.



PLEASE look up the definition of "secular" as it applies to a society. (Wikipedia puts it into that context in an easy-to-understand way. Go there.) You are laboring under a number of misconceptions, and your suggestion that the United States is not a secular country may be the most egregious mistake you have made yet. It would have taken you about two minutes to check the definition of secular before you posted. I check that kind of stuff all the time, because I consider it common courtesy to the other debaters.




No, this is not a non-accidental injury here, but you are reading the part of the statute that covers regular old physical abuse. The relevant part of the statute would probably be the "minimal nurture, health and safety" phrase. That is why, a couple of posts ago, I used the example of an otherwise healthy baby that needed only a transfusion and a simple, low-risk procedure (stitches) to live - to demonstrate where I think the court would almost certainly have acted. True, it is not clear whether or not this particular transfusion/treatment would fall under the "minimal" umbrella - that is why this is a good debate topic. (When something falls clearly under the law's definition, what's the use in debating the obvious?) This one is on the edge, and it could have gone either way. It is quite possible that a judge could find that if a child would most likely survive with a transfusion, he should get that treatment. But to get any real idea of how the courts in Washington have defined "minimal," you have to look at their past decisions on point, not a dictionary definition of "minimal." The risks of the procedure would be taken into account, but simply incurring a risk would not obligate them to rule against forcing treatment. It's all a balance.

You know what is great about interpretation? That it is interpretation! Are you going to tell me, that you and your law professor (I am very impressed by the way) are the only ones that get to interpret the Constitution? Are you telling me that no one else's interpretation has any value? Is that what you are telling me? Please walk out on that limb. I beg you. In my experience, law professors (actually any professors) are very liberal, and though I have no basis for this assumption, I would be willing to guess yours is too.


Thank you for bringing up references, as I have found a serious lack of them from you in this debate. You have made my point perfectly. Now, to go to a reference that isn't written by the general public and continuously edited, let us see where secular describes our society. I provided a reference (it's that pesky little thing we call a link) in my previous post pointing out the vast majority of our society practicing some sort of religion. According to this site: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/secular, it says that secular means that we are "not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest". I think my previous reference (that I actually provided, not just claimed existed) points out that all but about 10% of our society are "belonging to a religious order or congregation". Secular means the opposite. I clicked on the thesaurus link on the url I provided above, and was sent to this page http://www.m-w.com/thesaurus/secular and didn't come up with a synonym, but a more brief definition "not involving religion or religious matters". So if our society doesn't involve religion, why are there so many churches in our society? Why?

Its not that our society eschews religion. It's that until now, we have made a fairly big issue of keeping it seperate from the state.

The general premise is flawed, of course. It is the basic assumption that law and religion are two wholly distinct issues, that can be kept to their own fields, and tended by their own respective groups. (IE, Parsimoniously pious priests, and pernicious politicians. Porcine? Possibly.).

This is not the case. As seen here, religion is often closely tied to one's legal rights, and a Laissez-Faire policy in such a situation simply doesn't work. It sets precedents, allows for a merging of church and state that is too close for comfort.

JohnFrmCleveland, your legal insight is appreciated. However, please do not forget that no matter how "secular" the laws of this state may be, they are enforced, by, and upon, a citizen population that is more than 75% theist. Godless laws do not preclude a godless society, no matter how much you may wish it to be so.

That's the danger we face in getting all our information online.

I have The Random House Thesaurus, 1987.

Here are the synonyms for "secular":

1. worldly
2. profane
3. mundane
4. nonspiritual
5. nonreligious
6. nonsacred
7. nonreligious
8. temporal
9. earthly
10. lay
11. nonclerical
12. nonecclesiastical
13. fleshly
14. sensual
15. carnal

None of these is an exact match.

I don't understand the idea that one cannot have values independent of church or religious dogma.

Why do churches exist?

Here are a couple of ideas:


Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 17th Edition, page 316.

Now if you really want some good answers to this question, I would suggest you read The Bible According to Mark Twain. It's side splitting satire.

My question in regards to why do we have so many churches is in reference to John claiming that we are a secular society. If we are a secular society, why is it that 90% of Americans have a religious belief of some sort and churches are abundant. My point is that with the vast numbers of people that are religious, we are not a secular society.

I may be speaking out of turn, BoF, but from what I remember from our various debates, you sir are not a religious man. If I am incorrect, I appologize. Do you feel that we are a secular society? Do you think that one's religious beliefs does not play a part in how he or she lives his or her life, and makes those decisions that affect the remaining years of his or her life? I agree that some do not live religious lives, and thanks be to God that we live in a country that those that do not are free to do so, but statistically speaking, those are in the minority, and the vast majority of us do make decisions based on our religious teachings. (trying to get this back on topic here) This family made a decision based on their religious teachings, did not violate any laws in doing so, especially since the judge allowed the 14 year old to make his decision on his own. I don't necessarily agree with that ruling, but since it was not an illegal ruling, I support it.

You are correct. There is no apology necessary. I am a non-attending Unitarian. Many, but not all Unitarians, are secularists. In fact, we have theists, atheists, and agnostic all sitting in the same pews. I am agnostic. That simply means I don't know.

I agree that the United States is not a secular society. Yet I would argue that The Constitution of the United States is a secular document. The Declaration of Independence, which is not the law of the land, is partially a theisic document - one I think is based as much or more on John Locke than Thomas Jefferson's version that was heavily edited by his contemporaries.

I think that it is important the The Constitution remain secular, thereby still allowing an individual to practice his or her religion if he or she choses to, as they see fit.

I agree. How odd.

I would add that it also allows those who choose not to participate, be allowed not to take part. The constitution protects the secularist minority as well as the theists majority.

That is what I meant by "if he or she choses to."

I think it is important that everyone understands the meaning, in this context, of "secular." (The reason I pointed you to the Wikipedia definition is because it neatly explains what a secular society is in terms of states and religion.) A secular society does not preclude the practice of religion. Quite the opposite - it is separation of church and state that allows citizens to worship as they please. There is no official state religion in America, no matter what percentage of us are Protestant, no matter what percentage of us are Christians, no matter what overwhelming percentage of us follow any religion whatsoever, even if that number were 100%. Secular, in this instance, refers to the machinery of the state - the government, the judicial system, everything official. And for that to be true, as I have attempted to explain before, the laws must take precedence over religion when there is a conflict.

No law would say, "Every drivers license must show a picture of the holder's face, unless the holder is a devout Muslim woman." It wouldn't pass Constitutional muster, because it is discriminatory on it's face. It is not discriminatory because it makes Muslim women take off their burkas for the photograph, no matter how important this might be to them. Rather, it is discriminatory because it obviously treats Muslims different than everyone else. And that is exactly the point I was trying to make about considering religion in a case like this - if consideration of religion leads to different judgments for different religions, that is discriminatory. It doesn't matter how important the blood thing is to Jehovah's Witnesses - if the judge would have intervened and forced treatment on a Catholic, he should come to the exact same conclusion when dealing with a JW. I'm not saying that forcing treatment on anyone would have been the correct decision - I'm saying that the laws have to be applied consistently across the board. The question of religion should not even come up.

It is true that in this country, we bend over backwards to accomodate religious beliefs, sometimes even when those allowances conflict with the separation of church and state and the general spirit of secularism that this country was founded on. Blue Laws come to mind - there is no reason whatsoever to restrict the sale of liquor on Sundays, except that Christians hold Sundays in special regard. There is no mention of religion in those laws, but there they are, stopping us from buying a six pack before the football game. It is difficult, in a nation so overwhelmingly Christian, to prevent some of those values from leaking over into the laws, also made primarily by Christians. It's on our money, and it's in our Pledge of Allegiance (only since Ike, though). That does not make it right - just politically expedient. What lawmaker would throw himself on that sword just to remove "In God We Trust" from our dough? But the fact that no one has successfully challenged that does not make it Constitutionally correct.

**[We all remember that there is no evidence that the judge considered religion in this case, right? From the story, he judged, right or wrong, based on the "mature minor" definition. This is simply a theoretical offshoot, not completely on point.]

So, to "interpret" what you wrote, I will point out that you are saying that our government is secular, however our society is not. Just curious, what does any of this post have to do with this thread? I am trying to make a connection, but I can not. Help me out here.

You have again interpreted my posts incorrectly. I do not agree with you and Bof that America is not a secular society, nor have any of my posts ever said that. Once again, I will ask you to study up on the phrase "secular society." (Search "what is a secular society" on Yahoo to get to the same places I did.) In one case, it is the separation of church and state. In another (I'm probably being overly simplistic here), it is separation of religion from one's daily endeavors. And most of the country does not make their day-to-day decisions by asking themselves, "What would Jesus do?" Most of us make decisions based on rational thought, science, and logic. That doesn't mean we don't go to church, or believe in God, that just means that most of us treat religion as less than our main guiding principle. We act the way we act because we have come to the conclusion that it is the right way to act, or because we do not want to run afoul of the law, not because we fear the wrath of God. I imagine that you are in the other camp, which is fine.

The reason the thread went where the thread went was your contention that the First Amendment shielded this JW family from state interference because of their specific religious beliefs. I tried to explain to you where the limits of the First Amendment were. Maybe if you take another look at my posts from a less confrontational point of view, you will see that I am not anti-religion, I am just pro-separation-of-church-and-state.

JfC I think we are quibbling over semantics. I believe in separationof church and state as much as you do. However, I am defining society as an association of people, the majority of whom – in the case of this country - profess some belief in religion. The important thing is that we have a secular government, while recognizing religious freedom. Where I think scubatim and others disagree with us is where to draw the line.

Edited to add:

In the seasonal spirit of Scrooge, for example, I detest nativity scenes on any government property. Now that we’re starting this mess right after Halloween, I’m sick of it, but on private property like department stores it’s legal. The private sector factors into a definition of society as much as the public sector.

I will just come out and say it. Provide anything as a reference to back up anything that you say. I am begging you to provide references on anything. You claim that "most of the country does not make their day-to-day decisions by asking themselves, "What would Jesus do?"". They may not use that wording, but when they are brought up learning morals, values and standards through their church (I provided a link to the number of people in this country that are religious) they make their decisions based on those morals that have become the basis for which they made decisions. Everyone has their set of morals and values. They get those morals and values from some sort of background. Yours might be based on what you call logic. Many get them from the teachings of their parents, and most families get their moral beliefs from the religious teachings. You are very quickly losing credibility with me when you make these off the cuff statements without any sort of reference to back up your claims. (and saying that your "law professor" says so, isn't much of a reference) You then go on to say "Most of us make decisions based on rational thought, science, and logic.". Again, a blanket statement that pretty much covers those that are atheist or agnostic. You include yourself as to what the majority of the country bases their morals on. Only 10% of this country (see link above) do not practice religion. How is that even remotely close to "most of us"? If you need help, I suggest going to the Survivial Guide to read up on blanket statements. Here is just a teaser:


Yes I do think the First Amendment shielded this JW family from state interference. If the judge felt otherwise, he would have overruled the boy's decision, and not allowed him to make such a decision. If the state had such an interest in forcing this boy to have a blood transfusion, and it wasn't violating his first amendment right to refuse based on religious practices, and if his religious practices were irresponsible, then you need to get a hold of the Washington State Supreme Court and bring this up because this judge blatantly disregarded his duties and should be punished. How on earth could the state deem this boy a mature minor if his beliefs were so irresponsible? How could the state make the ruling that it did if the boy's religious practices be such a hindrance? Please educate us on the limits of the first amendment, and you better send this judge that made this decision a letter too, he seems to need a re-education as well, after all, he is just a judge. In being "pro-separation-of-church-and-state", you too would agree that the state can not control how one practices their religion as long as that religion does not violate established laws. Otherwise, the belief that you are projecting is that when someone's belief goes against your "rational thought, science, and logic", the state can jump all over them and force them to go against their ridiculous religion. That in itself is the simplest definition of violating someone's first amendment right by prohibiting the free exercise thereof, which the first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"meaning there are no laws that can prohibit this boy and his family from making the decision that he did.

Here is some interesting data on the actual practice of religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States



Let's put those numbers into perspective: there are 168 hours in a week. Most church services are about one hour, more or less. That means that those who attend church regularly spend about 0.595% of their time in church. (That's generously assuming that they are staying awake for the whole hour.) And that only goes for the top 26% to 41%. The rest spend far less time in church. On the other hand, assuming you finish high school, you will spend 12,960 hours (not counting Kindergarten) being influenced by math, science, literature, history, etc. If you went to church for one hour every week, it would take 249 years to match that 12,960 hours of school that kids get by the time they are 18.

Still think most people are more influenced by religion than by science, logic and reason? Of course you do.

By the way, where is your link backing up the outrageous claim that only 10% of Americans "don't practice religion"? The only one I saw was (after much searching) your world fact book site that listed people's religious affiliations. There is a huge difference between saying you are affiliated with a church and actually practicing that religion. Even I am "affiliated" with the Catholics. So you provide a link, but misstate the data to bolster your position.



There is absolutely no suggestion and no evidence from the original post that the judge ruled on anything but the mature minor status of the boy. Nowhere did it say that the judge considered his or anybody else's religious beliefs when ruling. The original question was simply about the propriety of a 14-year-old kid being ruled capable of making such an important decision. YOU were the one who brought up religion when you weighed in with your (incorrect) interpretation of the First Amendment. (post #19) From the evidence provided, the judge made no such mistake - probably because when he was in law school, he studied Constitutional Law with an open mind instead of clinging to whatever simplistic interpretation he previously held.

Yeah, I do still think people are influenced by religion. Do you honestly think that just because church service last only one hour per week, that is all the exposure religious people get? That is a bold assumption. I do, however, like how you constantly go back to Wiki, which in my experience is not allowed as an intellectual reference since it is created and edited by who ever wants to jump in. Your post has little to any relevance to our debate. You are not even close to making any relevant point.


Ok, lets go to the outrageous claim that only 10% don't practice religion. I know you want to make it look like I have not posted very many references to make yourself feel better about your Wiki references, but I think the evidence shows otherwise. Back to the point of our "secular" society. You see, the world fact book is much more thorough and factual than Wiki. Do you actually get to use Wiki as reference in your college studies. My professors do not allow it, but maybe that is the difference between our schools. See this and this to learn of it's validity. Now, if you go to my original link, you will find that it refers to religions of the people of the United States. Since the 2002 estimated percentage of people that do not adhere to a religion is 10%, I would say that those don't practice religion. If you can come up with a different intelligent interpretation, please do share.

Now, back to the judges ruling. Would you, one person that is against religion being a legitimate reason to refuse a blood transfusion, consider the child mature enough to make that decision given his basis for such? Do you think that the evidence presented to the judge did not include the basis for which the boy and his aunt were making the decision? If the biological parents made their case, it is nearly certain that the boy's religion was presented. You should ask your law professor to see if that assumption would be a safe one.

I do like how you have the power and authority to rule one person's interpretation as wrong. How is that? Did you win a prize of some sort in your Constitutional Law class? I find it that you are the one without the open mind. It is through overly complex interpretations that law is made from the bench, which is unconstitutional. (Show me in the constitution that judges can make law) But I digress, I will have an open mind, if you will. I will post my plain English written reference as to why I think religion can be used to make a life or death decision here. You will find this part written in this reference:

What do you have to support your position? I have the Constitution of the United States.

I linked you to the Wikipedia article, which itself was referenced to the hilt. The polls I used were Gallup and Harris. I also referenced ReligiousTolerance.org, which is not exactly against religion, as you might have guessed by the name. And unlike your numbers from the factbook (which is fine as a reference) that refer to affiliation, I found numbers that represent church attendance, which I think is a more accurate representation of how much a person values religion and is likely to be heavily influenced by it, all of which is relevant to our side debate about secularism.



I showed you a different intelligent interpretation - that your 90% represents only religious affiliation, and means very little when talking about the influence of religion on a person. As I pointed out before, many of us will say that we are Catholic, Methodist, whatever, even though we rarely, if ever, attend church. (See the ReligiousTolerance.org site on that one.) Church attendance, on the other hand, measures one's willingness to at least drag themselves to church.

Also, you are free to use your own common sense, if you want to. Do you think that 90% of the 300 million people in this country are in church every Sunday? 80%, even? Not even close. Not even in Mayberry. Not even in Iowa.



Wrong again, ScubaTim. I am not against religion, and I do think that religion is a legitimate reason for refusing a blood transfusion. If you are 18 and able to make your own decisions about your own treatment, go ahead and pull the plug, I don't care. But if the state has a compelling interest in treating a minor child, like keeping them alive or vaccinating them, then your religious reason for refusing treatment does not carry enough weight with me (or with our government). I am reasonably sure that they made their case and made the judge aware of their position. Yes, a safe assumption. And it still does not mean that the judge considered religion when making his decision. As I have tried to explain to you many times before, it would have been discriminatory for him to change his ruling based on their religion. From what was presented to us, he simply based his ruling on the mature minor statute. As I pointed out way back in post #24, I don't agree that the mature minor statute was used properly, as it was designed to cover other aspects of a teenager's medical needs, but the judge apparently used what law was available to him at the time.



I also have the Constitution of the United States. Plus, I have over 200 years of Supreme Court decisions, dozens of law textbooks, and the whole Judicial branch of our government on my side of this issue. I didn't win any prize in my Constitutional Law class, but I took the class, studied the materials, discussed the materials in class, passed the class, and later passed the bar exam, which also included Constitutional Law. And through all of that, it became crystal clear that freedom of religion is NOT an absolute right. Nor is the right to bear arms, freedom of the press, or freedom of speech. All of those rights are slightly trimmed and contoured to fit into the larger legal framework of our country.

You are also wrong when you declare "overly complex interpretations" making law from the bench "unconstitutional." Judge-made law is the law of our land. It's called common law, and it's straight from the English system. Look it up anywhere. It's not a matter of debate. It's fact.

Now I am done with this thread. Others have lost interest long ago, and my only interest in this was to try to set you straight about your misinterpretation of the First Amendment and steer you in the right direction. But if you don't want to learn, I can't force you.

Actually, you didn't reference anything from Gallup and Harris. You just made the claim that there was information from those companies. That really isn't a reference unless you actually put a link for me to go to, then tell me what the heck I am looking for. Also, my reference isn't about affiliation, but if you looked at one of my many references to the information, you would know that it is related to the adherents. According to Merriam-Webster, adherents means:

So, with those two definitions on the table, that means that 90% of the people of the United States is a follower, believer, or advocate. Not just affiliated.


So, by your reasoning, religious people attend church every week? I have a strong belief system, I love and fear God, and I try to base decisions such as the one in this thread on the morals taught by Jesus. I haven't been to church in months.

Another way to look at it is this; I am a huge Nebraska Cornhusker's fan, but I have only been to three or four games in my life, and I rarely watch the games on TV. Just because someone doesn't attend church every weekend, you can't claim that they don't have strong roots in their religious beleifs.



Again, if you think this is fact, you should contact this judge and the Supreme Court because he allowed this minor to make this decision based on religion. Why is it that no other known legal action has been taken if it is illegal?


If you have over 200 years of Supreme Court decision, please provide references. It seems that you make these claims, but I don't know of any law that restricts the practice of one's religion when that religion does not violate established laws that would infringe on other peoples rights.


Really? Our government makes laws from the bench? Really? I would be interested in seeing a reference besides JohnfromCleveland says so. It would be different. By the way, I thought the law of the land was the United States Constitution. I might be wrong.


How is my interpretation wrong? You have only made the claim, not the explination. What makes you so right? You have not answered that question, or even attempted to. I think that is why you are done with this thread, not any other reason.

The real question here is this-can a minor make an informed medical decision? There have been other cases like this where custody was temporarily taken away from the guardian in order to get the necessary and proper care. A few cases can be found here where that has happened. Let us all not forget Nebraskamom's experience as well. People who are mentally ill, who have an altered mental status, or who are minors, cannot refuse care to paramedics/EMTs. The only minors who can refuse care are legally emancipated ones. Personally, I don't buy the maturity argument one bit. When you are 14, you are not a critically thinking person. Your views are your parents(or guardian's) views on matters. It's not until a few years after that, that you begin to assert yourself more to the chagrin and angst of your parents. With that being said, the ultimate say in the matter was his aunt, who had legal custody of him. As she backed his position, or hers I should say, then the judge made the right decision. Lindberg's parents lost custody for a number of years due to drug use. The parents should look at themselves and why their son was removed from them as the chief problem as to why their child is no longer alive. Perhaps if they were more concerned about him when he was growing up, then perhaps they could've made the decision on his behalf, or loved him enough to let him choose his path if he wanted. Regardless, they didn't have that power. This was an open and shut case from a legal stand point. The non-custodial parents were really behind the eight ball on this one from a legal vantage point.

Did the judge rule correctly?

Well, the article does not go into the decision process for the establishment of the child as a mature minor, so it's difficult to answer this question.

Is a mature fourteen-year-old legally capable of making such a decision?

Legally? Sure. If a judge determines that a child is a mature minor capable of making such decisions, then yes... a 14 year old who has legally obtained the status of mature minor is legally capable of making such a decision.

Can a mature minor make those determinations based on religious belief? Sure. Even if those decisions are life threatening? Yes. Much of religion is based on what happens after death - how one lives affects one's afterlife. What little that I've read in this thread appears to deal less with the validity of the mature minor doctrine and more of a condemnation of decisions made based on religious belief.



Right. What I've read indicates that when a parent or legal guardian disagrees with the child, that conflict can weigh heavily upon the minor's right to refuse treatment. The State must also take into consideration the right of the parent to make decisions regarding the welfare of the child. If the child is an emancipated minor, the parent's position is irrelevant; but when the child is not emancipated but is a mature minor, the parent's position on treatment may outweigh the position of the mature minor.

Scubatim, we all have our areas of expertise. Since I am an attorney, mine happens to be the law. So, you don't tell me how to interpret the law, and I won't tell you how many pickles to put on a Whopper.

First, I have never said that your interpretation is wrong. I have only pointed out why I disagree with yours, why I think mine is right and have asked for any type of reference that I can read that supports your interpretation. Second, you are the one that has said that I was wrong, but have not shown us why I am wrong with any type of supporting reference. Third, interpretation of the law is not the job of a lawyer, but the job of a judge.