Jesus fails to answer prayers, teen dies

[CptStern]

A 16-year-old member of a faith healing church died of uremic heart failure caused by a stricture in his urinary tract, according to autopsy results.

The urinary tract condition could have been fixed with a catheter, said Dr. Cliff Nelson, the state Medical Examiner. The outpatient procedure is routine.

Instead, 16-year-old Neal Beagley's urinary tract became inflamed and closed off. He was unable to urinate, which made his bladder and kidneys stop functioning, the autopsy showed. Toxins backed up into his blood stream

Like all members of the religious order, Beagley did not receive medical care. His condition worsened Sunday and members of the church gathered for prayer, Benton said.

The family belongs to the Oregon City Followers of Christ Church. The church is a fundamentalist Christian denomination that recently made headlines after two members were arrested and accused of using prayer instead of medical care to try to cure their deathly ill daughter.

http://halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=140596


they obviously cannot decide for themselves what's best for them, they should be forced to seek medical attention ..I really dont think age makes a difference because these people are children in their way of thinking; they cant make rational choices


http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_061808_news_faith_healing_death.13b408d5.html

 

[Solaris]

Let the adults do what they want.

The parents of the 16year old should be imprisoned however.

 

[repiV]

You don't have the right to decide that certain people should not be able to make their own choices in life. It's really none of your concern...

Idiots die. The world moves on - minus a few idiots.

 

[Solaris]

But what about the children they indocterinate and then deny medical treatment too? That's child abuse of the highest degree.

 

[repiV]

Stern explictly stated that he believes the adults should be treated as children too.

 

[CptStern]

You don't have the right to decide that certain people should not be able to make their own choices in life. It's really none of your concern...

sure we can, we already do, we legislate people from driving excessively fast, or possessing child pornography or refusing medical treatment for their children. It's not black and white, there's a lot of grey area

Stern explictly stated that he believes the adults should be treated as children too.

because their thought processes are no better than children ..what rational person thinks saying a bunch of words would save them from certain death?

 

[repiV]

sure we can, we already do, we legislate people from driving excessively fast, or possessing child pornography or refusing medical treatment for their children. It's not black and white, there's a lot of grey area

All those laws exist to protect the public interest, not to protect individuals from themselves. Otherwise, we would have laws against driving excessively fast on a racetrack, playing squash without eye protection or refusing medical treatment for yourself.

because their thought processes are no better than children ..what rational person thinks saying a bunch of words would save them from certain death?

You're crossing that line beyond protecting the public interest and into protecting people from themselves. That is totalitarianism.

You could very easily replace the above sentence with "what rational person would ride a motorcycle at high speed on treacherous back roads?" and I'm sure you'd find millions agreeing with you. That, however, is one of the great joys of my life and if I want to do something which others may consider irrational that's noone else's business but my own.
And I support everyone else's right to do the same. I can't see why any rational person would take up smoking, but it's none of my damn business.

You're basically saying we should make every effort to eliminate the consequences of stupidity - well, great, we've been doing that already for a decade or two and now we have a society full of braindead ****wits and supplicants.

 

[CptStern]

All those laws exist to protect the public interest, not to protect individuals from themselves. Otherwise, we would have laws against driving excessively fast on a racetrack, playing squash without eye protection or refusing medical treatment for yourself.

You're crossing that line beyond protecting the public interest and into protecting people from themselves. That is totalitarianism.

You could very easily replace the above sentence with "what rational person would ride a motorcycle at high speed on treacherous back roads?" and I'm sure you'd find millions agreeing with you. That, however, is one of the great joys of my life and if I want to do something which others may consider irrational that's noone else's business but my own.
And I support everyone else's right to do the same. I can't see why any rational person would take up smoking, but it's none of my damn business.

but we've legislated against this ..why couldnt we legislate people from being stupid? I'm not saying grab someone who's dying and forcefeed him medicine, I'm saying their idiotic faith healing should be considered no different than selling snake oil as a way of treating illness; false claims that could lead to charges of criminal negligence ..slap the idiot church with fines, arrest faith healers etc ..again you're seeing this issue as black and white when it could be easily legislated against simply with the precedents/laws that are already in place to prevent us from doing stupid things

 

[No Limit]

Holy shit batman, I actually agree with repiV over stern on this one.

The parents have every right to kill themselves like this if they want, I really don't care. Is it sad? Sure. But these people are nuts, there is nothing you can do to change their ways. Don't believe me? Go to a creation message board and try to argue that the earth is more than 4,000 years old. See what happens. Yes, we have laws now that are meant to protect us from ourselves. Msot of those laws in my opinion are also unjust.

I would agree that there is something seriously wrong here as this is the second time this has happened. The parents of both children need to be made an example of so this shit doesn't ever happen again.

 

[CptStern]

you're not allowed to kill yourself legally


look I think people need to understand that I couldnt care less about these people ..sure I care about the children they affect but I couldnt care less if they drank poisoned koolaid (in so far that it would be "omg the horror" but I'd still write it off as stupid people doing stupid things)

HOWEVER, religious freedom allows them to imposed their retarded way of life on their children. Forcing faith healers to be responsible, forcing churches to be accountable for the idiotic nonsense they spew WILL save lives, most likely starting with children ..I mean if I forced people through coerxion/manipulation I could be arrested for fraud, this is no different than the tenants of faith healing .. why the **** does religion get a free ride?

it's their choice to mutilate their daughter's genitalia, it's their choice to force them into marriage, it's their choice preach hate ...their choice does not vindicate them from right and wrong..in every one of the examples government has stepped in to say n you cant mutilate your children's genitalia ..so why is stepping in to stop idioti faith healers from practicising their mumbo jumbo? slap them with a $100k fine every single time they practice their religious stupidity we'll see how fast faith healers disappear and ERs start filling up wih the religiously hopeless with common ailments that would have killed them had they followed their retarded religious beliefs

the probelm is that government wont touch religion because far too many people would get their panties in a bunch

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

1) the parents are no better than murderors in my books.

2) Adults should be able to be dumbshits and die if they wish.

 

[repiV]

but we've legislated against this ..why couldnt we legislate people from being stupid? I'm not saying grab someone who's dying and forcefeed him medicine, I'm saying their idiotic faith healing should be considered no different than selling snake oil as a way of treating illness; false claims that could lead to charges of criminal negligence ..slap the idiot church with fines, arrest faith healers etc ..again you're seeing this issue as black and white when it could be easily legislated against simply with the precedents/laws that are already in place to prevent us from doing stupid things

There shouldn't be any laws in place to prevent us from doing stupid things - unless that stupidity directly places an innocent party in danger.

Two issues here - the first is that citizenship/adulthood comes with responsibilities as well as rights. Having the state step in and assume responsibilities for people has had the effect of seriously damaging basic adult capabilities. As I've said before, well-meaning nannying creates a society of eternal childhood.
This can be seen in numerous guises - whether it's the new and alarming trend of widespread colossal inability to manage basic personal finances, the unprecedented incompetence and idiocy of today's politicians or the huge deterioriation in driving skills since education and common sense on the road was replaced with excessive legislation and enforcement.
Society is not there to provide for you, it's a framework which enables you to take advantage of the opportunities available. Why would any intelligent and capable person want to live in a society which caters to the lowest common denominator?

The second is that everyone has a different idea of what is stupid, irresponsible or irrational. The concept of trying to stop people from "being stupid" opens a whole can of authoritarian worms and then some. Why people can't just stop sticking their noses into the lives of strangers is beyond me.

 

[MJ12]

I heard it works sometimes.

 

[CptStern]

There shouldn't be any laws in place to prevent us from doing stupid things - unless that stupidity directly places an innocent party in danger.

you're living in a dream world, not going to happen anytime soon ..and what we "should" do doesnt hold up in reality

Two issues here - the first is that citizenship/adulthood comes with responsibilities as well as rights. Having the state step in and assume responsibilities for people has had the effect of seriously damaging basic adult capabilities. As I've said before, well-meaning nannying creates a society of eternal childhood.

you're still stuck on the fact that you think a man in a governemnt issued suit should be at your side to prevent you from using faith healing when realistically speaking government would legislate at the source: make churches accountable for their idiocy ..I think every one can agree with that? no?

This can be seen in numerous guises - whether it's the new and alarming trend of widespread colossal inability to manage basic personal finances, the unprecedented incompetence and idiocy of today's politicians or the huge deterioriation in driving skills since education and common sense on the road was replaced with excessive legislation and enforcement.
Society is not there to provide for you, it's a framework which enables you to take advantage of the opportunities available. Why would any intelligent and capable person want to live in a society which caters to the lowest common denominator?

again you're stuck on abstract concepts that never play out in real life. ..there's not enough tax money in the world to appoint everyone their own government nanny however you can easily set up laws that hold faith groups accountable for their actions ..what is wrong with this?

The second is that everyone has a different idea of what is stupid, irresponsible or irrational. The concept of trying to stop people from "being stupid" opens a whole can of authoritarian worms and then some. Why people can't just stop sticking their noses into the lives of strangers is beyond me.

man, you're not listening

 

[Mr Stabby]

I think it's justified to intervene in the case of children as they aren't always qualified to decide what's best for them. Adults however should be free to practice any form of nutty religious healing they want on themselves.

 

[repiV]

you're not allowed to kill yourself legally

You are in the UK. In any case, stupid laws are treated with contempt as well they should be. If I have to be an obedient, submissive sheep to be considered a law-abiding person then I'm afraid society has made an outlaw out of me - and of most interesting or worthwhile people for that matter.

look I think people need to understand that I couldnt care less about these people ..sure I care about the children they affect but I couldnt care less if they drank poisoned koolaid (in so far that it would be "omg the horror" but I'd still write it off as stupid people doing stupid things)

If you don't care less then why do you want them to be forced to accept medical treament from the government?

HOWEVER, religious freedom allows them to imposed their retarded way of life on their children. Forcing faith healers to be responsible, forcing churches to be accountable for the idiotic nonsense they spew WILL save lives, most likely starting with children ..I mean if I forced people through coerxion/manipulation I could be arrested for fraud, this is no different than the tenants of faith healing .. why the **** does religion get a free ride?

Lots of people spew idiotic nonsense. Idiotic nonsense is the guiding force behind this entire country at present, but it's not a crime.
Getting rid of extortionate "green taxes" on fuel and transport which are driven primarily by envy and greed would also save many lives as it would bring a lot of people out of poverty and revitalise the economy. So can we lock Al Gore up for spewing his idiotic nonsense?

it's their choice to mutilate their daughter's genitalia, it's their choice to force them into marriage, it's their choice preach hate ...their choice does not vindicate them from right and wrong..in every one of the examples government has stepped in to say n you cant mutilate your children's genitalia ..so why is stepping in to stop idioti faith healers from practicising their mumbo jumbo? slap them with a $100k fine every single time they practice their religious stupidity we'll see how fast faith healers disappear and ERs start filling up wih the religiously hopeless with common ailments that would have killed them had they followed their retarded religious beliefs

the probelm is that government wont touch religion because far too many people would get their panties in a bunch

It's not the concern of the law to legislate what's right and wrong, but to protect the public interest. It's a very important distinction and I feel you're missing it.

 

[CptStern]

but they never intervene ..how could they? unless they're tipped off they couldnt possibly know. I'm proposing an ironclad solution that will work; get to the source and make religions accountable for what they teach

the law should be to the effect of "hey we have no problems with your religion, you can believe what you like ..however once you start preaching things like faith healing to your congregation then you will be held accountable, and if that means you as a priest will serve time for preaching stupidity then so be it, it's your CHOICE""

faith healing will disappear overnight

 

[Mr Stabby]

I'm sure religious people will like that, having the state tell them what to believe, sounds very workable.

 

[repiV]

but they never intervene ..how could they? unless they're tipped off they couldnt possibly know. I'm proposing an ironclad solution that will work; get to the source and make religions accountable for what they teach

the law should be to the effect of "hey we have no problems with your religion, you can believe what you like ..however once you start preaching things like faith healing to your congregation then you will be held accountable, and if that means you as a priest will serve time for preaching stupidity then so be it, it's your CHOICE""

faith healing will disappear overnight

Cracking down on people for teaching the non-government approved worldview?

Sorry, but that's beyond absurd and an extremely sinister concept. As before, the definition of "nonsense" is infinitely malleable and subjective. You also have the free will not to listen to said nonsense.

 

[99.vikram]

What are Repiv and Stern arguing over? The parents have no right to deny the child (a separate individual) medical care.
Criminal negligence, that's what this is.

The parent's stupidity affected the child, that's what makes this case cut and dry. There's no question of the govt. overstepping boundaries - the parents failed a duty towards the child and should be thrown in the slammer for a long time.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Faith healing is actually harmless, it's the ignoring proper medical care which is the issue. Maybe it should be illegal not to take a sick child to a doctor.

 

[CptStern]

I really dont care what they think or how they react and you're missing the point

Jim jones would have be accountable for his actions ..he told 900 people to drink poisoned koolaid, his actions led to the deaths of 900 people making him criminally responsible ..if a preacher says "no dont go to doctors, they're satan's consorts, you should get your urinary tract cured here" and if that person then dies, the preacher should be held accountable; at the very least criminal negligence, because the preachers words/(in)actions led to their deaths

 

[repiV]

What are Repiv and Stern arguing over? The parents have no right to deny the child (a separate individual) medical care.
Criminal negligence, that's what this is.

That was never in question, we're talking about the state intervening on behalf of an adult.

Although we still have to beware of the expanding power of the state to intervene on behalf of a child, obviously in cases like these it's justified but some people don't know where to draw the line. I think it's no accident that parents are more and more being told how to raise their kids and having their choices taken away, and kids are becoming ever scummier, ever more disrespectful and ever more violent. Which comes back again to the consequences of taking away adult responsibilities from adults.

 

[CptStern]

Cracking down on people for teaching the non-government approved worldview?

Sorry, but that's beyond absurd and an extremely sinister concept. As before, the definition of "nonsense" is infinitely malleable and subjective. You also have the free will not to listen to said nonsense.

you're making a mountain out of a molehill plus you're being hypocritical ..your governemnt already cracks down on teaching a nongovernment worldview be outlawing things like sharia law or honour killing or forcing minimum educational standards ..you wouldnt the government to be steamrolled by special interest groups who have their own crazy means of arbitration ..I mean you wouldnt want your governemtn to allow for sharia law would you?

 

[Mr Stabby]

If someone says doctors are evil, he isn't forcing them to believe it. It's a person own fault for believing such nonsense.

 

[repiV]

I really dont care what they think or how they react and you're missing the point

Jim jones would have be accountable for his actions ..he told 900 people to drink poisoned koolaid, his actions led to the deaths of 900 people making him criminally responsible ..if a preacher says "no dont go to doctors, they're satan's consorts, you should get your urinary tract cured here" and if that person then dies, the preacher should be held accountable; at the very least criminal negligence, because the preachers words/(in)actions led to their deaths

No, I'm not missing the point. If you drink poisoned Kool Aid just because someone told you to, you're a moron and it's tough shit.

If I got some bad advice on motorcycling from someone and got seriously injured as a result, should they be criminally responsible? It's a pretty common scenario, and instructors often give bad advice.

If people aren't capable of taking responsibility for their own actions then they should pay the price.

 

[repiV]

you're making a mountain out of a molehill plus you're being hypocritical ..your governemnt already cracks down on teaching a nongovernment worldview be outlawing things like sharia law or honour killing or forcing minimum educational standards ..you wouldnt the government to be steamrolled by special interest groups who have their own crazy means of arbitration ..I mean you wouldnt want your governemtn to allow for sharia law would you?

This country is run by special interest groups who lobby the government, it's nothing new.

Sharia law and honour killings are not issues of free speech or individual liberty, but of public interest. Likewise, minimum educational standards are not about teaching the government-approved worldview but ensuring that the level of education provided is of a satisfactory quality.

 

[Absinthe]

Why do we want to protect people from being willingly stupid and harming themselves?

 

[99.vikram]

Sharia law and honour killings are not issues of free speech or individual liberty, but of public interest.

How? Sharia only applies to believers of the Koran. If the Muslim woman next door to you was stoned for adultery, would that be okay? Sometimes you have to take away some freedom from individuals to let society run without friction.

If a preacher spreads harmful and obvious lies, it becomes the state's duty to intervene.

 

[CptStern]

No, I'm not missing the point. If you drink poisoned Kool Aid just because someone told you to, you're a moron and it's tough shit.

ya well it's against the law in that if you knowingly force someone through intimidation ("hey you're going to hell") or through maipulation ("faith healing works 100% of the time) you are just as responsible had you force fed them koolaid

If I got some bad advice on motorcycling from someone and got seriously injured as a result, should they be criminally responsible? It's a pretty common scenario, and instructors often give bad advice.

there is no threat of everlasting burning in the pits of hell ..apples and oranges

If people aren't capable of taking responsibility for their own actions then they should pay the price.

again you're talking in abstract concepts that dont work in real life ..it's not as black and white as you believe it to be, we already legislate agaisnt many things that would be harmful to individuals ..which is why I cant buy heroin at wal-mart, or a pack of cyanide chewing gun, or explosives or a human catapult

 

[Mr Stabby]

So Stern what's your view on freedom of speech?

 

[repiV]

How? Sharia only applies to believers of the Koran. If the Muslim woman next door to you was stoned for adultery, would that be okay? Sometimes you have to take away some freedom from individuals to let society run without friction.

No it wouldn't be ok, because it would be murder. It's hardly a matter of individual liberty - Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and Sikhs all manage to practice their religion in this country without disturbing anyone else, breaking our laws and mores or disrupting the fabric of our society. Sharia Law is an entirely different matter as it would a) serve as an oppressive structure that people would be naturally born or intimidated into, a sort of society within a society b) violates already existing laws which protect the public interest and c) the rest of us would have to suffer the wide scale problems the whole situation would cause.

If a preacher spreads harmful and obvious lies, it becomes the state's duty to intervene.

Who defines what's harmful, or obvious?
It's not much of a stretch from there to the state silencing anti-government protestors, or prosecuting "climate change deniers".

ya well it's against the law in that if you knowingly force someone through intimidation ("hey you're going to hell") or through maipulation ("faith healing works 100% of the time) you are just as responsible had you force fed them koolaid

there is no threat of everlasting burning in the pits of hell ..apples and oranges

What on earth has that got to do with anything? I thought you were advocating a principle of legal responsibility for giving potentially harmful advice, but it seems you just want a convinient stick to beat organised religion with.

again you're talking in abstract concepts that dont work in real life ..it's not as black and white as you believe it to be, we already legislate agaisnt many things that would be harmful to individuals ..which is why I cant buy heroin at wal-mart, or a pack of cyanide chewing gun, or explosives or a human catapult

What does that have to do with free speech or protecting people from themselves?

 

[kirovman]

Suicide used to be a capital offence.

 

[CptStern]

No it wouldn't be ok, because it would be murder. It's hardly a matter of individual liberty - Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and Sikhs all manage to practice their religion in this country without disturbing anyone else, breaking our laws and mores or disrupting the fabric of our society. Sharia Law is an entirely different matter as it would a) serve as an oppressive structure that people would be naturally born or intimidated into, a sort of society within a society b) violates already existing laws which protect the public interest and c) the rest of us would have to suffer the wide scale problems the whole situation would cause.

sharia law is just religious arbitration for everyday life, it's not a set of rules ..and other religions also have specific laws that deal on how to be a good sheep. the government prohibits religiously mandated law from those groups you've mentioned just as they prohibit sharia law from superceding the law of the land. Catholics/christians would love nothing more than to have religion shape the law of the land but the governemnt has built in safeguards against this ..no western country that I'm aware of is a slave to religiously mandated law.

by definition all religiously mandated law is oppressive because it's above all other law with no room for interpretation ..

Who defines what's harmful, or obvious?
It's not much of a stretch from there to the state silencing anti-government protestors, or prosecuting "climate change deniers".

you're heading off in a different unrelated tangent ..no one is advocating that freedom of speech be curbed ..that's your agenda and where you want to steer the coversation but at no time did I say anything abouit silencing dissent or whathaveyou because that would be a slippery slope ....

What on earth has that got to do with anything? I thought you were advocating a principle of legal responsibility for giving potentially harmful advice, but it seems you just want a convinient stick to beat organised religion with.

please dont put words in my mouth, you've been doing it all along in this thread, you can stop now

again, a preacher telling someone they'll go to hell if they seek out professional medical help isnt advice ..it's purposeful decieving someone into positioning themselves into deaths path ..that's criminal negligence causing bodily harm

What does that have to do with free speech or protecting people from themselves?

since when is this a free speech issue? oh ok since you turned it into one. it has everything to do with legislating things that could hurt individuals; protecting them from their own stupidity

 

[Mr Stabby]

How is banning a preacher from saying stupid things, not a free speech issue?

 

[Llama]

I think I agree with repiV here - I assume I follow his argument, which is that an adult of sound mind should be fully responcible for what decisions he/ she makes.

If so, I can't see why there would be a problem with this.

We assume our adult is capable of making sound judgement.

We assume the decision the adult makes is not going to affect another in a definable way.

Any bad choice this adult makes will therefore only badly affect the adult, who was well aware of the consequences of that choice in the first place.

If so, what's the problem?

 

[CptStern]

How is banning a preacher from saying stupid things, not a free speech issue?

because freedom of speech does not allow the individual to infringe on the rights of others ..in this case, the right to life



look, you people are looking for things that i'm just not saying and putting words in my mouth

no one could possibly ever hope to shadow every single person in society, therefore the quickest route would be to go to the source ..just like a preacher in canada couldnt stand up and incite hate at the pulpit (he's perfectly able to do this in private) he shouldnt[/i[] be able to preach that medicine is bad and the only way to survival is through faith healing ..his actions are directly responsibile for any harm it may cause because it goes beyond advice into the realm of religious edicts

 

[Mr Stabby]

because freedom of speech does not allow the individual to infringe on the rights of others ..in this case, the right to life

I'm not quite following that, how does speech infringe on peoples right to life.

look, you people are looking for things that i'm just not saying and putting words in my mouth

no one could possibly ever hope to shadow every single person in society, therefore the quickest route would be to go to the source ..just like a preacher in canada couldnt stand up and incite hate at the pulpit (he's perfectly able to do this in private) he shouldnt[/i[] be able to preach that medicine is bad and the only way to survival is through faith healing ..his actions are directly responsibile for any harm it may cause because it goes beyond advice into the realm of religious edicts

You propose legislating against people saying certain things then?

It's a very dubious and dangerous idea, to legislate that people cannot say things, if it could lead to someone doing something stupid.

 

[CptStern]

I'm not quite following that, how does speech infringe on peoples right to life.

simple, if someone advocated that modern medicine is a path to hell and the only viable alternative is to trust in god it's detrimental to someone's right to life

You propose legislating against people saying certain things then?

It's a very dubious and dangerous idea, to legislate that people cannot say things, if it could lead to someone doing something stupid.

you're twisting my words to suit your agenda ..i'm say (rightfully so) that government has the right to protect the rights of individuals and that no individual right should supercede the rights of another individual

so if I were to incite hate I'm infringing on the rights of others

do you not have hate legislation in the UK?

 

[Beerdude26]

/enters thread

At first I was like

which is why I cant buy heroin at wal-mart, or a pack of cyanide chewing gun, or explosives or a human catapult

But then I was like