tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post6339862135658117446..comments2008-03-28T08:18:38.202-07:00Lew Watershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06422249750094117697noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-31292237627690177372008-03-28T08:18:00.000-07:002008-03-28T08:18:00.000-07:00

I'm doing a large academic paper on Christian Science and the refusal of medicine in the case of sick children. In the case of Christian Science, the laregest organized religious group that uses spiritual healing practices, prayer and medicine cannot be used at the same time. This is because Christian Scienctists reject the existence of the material world, believing only in the spiritual world.

Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03464126844975927467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-63551159036002739702008-03-25T18:42:00.000-07:002008-03-25T18:42:00.000-07:00

I agree, David. Now, how do we ensure those children will receive medical attention?Since the sect is so secretive, how do we monitor their children and not violate Freedom of Religion?There has to be a legal way to ensure those children receive needed medical care. But first, the authorities must know they need it.How do we monitor this sect and not begin a slippery slope monitoring all other

Lew Watershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06422249750094117697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-19086948523121493242008-03-25T14:23:00.000-07:002008-03-25T14:23:00.000-07:00

The parents chose their religion. The child did not.Several years ago I was the roommate, and good friend, of a Christian Scientist. She took no medicines and saw no doctors. But when her elderly father -- also a CS -- was suffering, they went to a hospital for treatment.The parents have no right to force their irrational beliefs on their children.

David Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-50123714442326193322008-03-25T11:56:00.000-07:002008-03-25T11:56:00.000-07:00

There's no question that the health of the child comes before the religious wishes of his parents. There is a gentleman that I have worked with while coaching kids. His own son was injured. This gentleman's response was to pray for his son's healing. I spoke directly with this gentleman. The point is, you can disagree politely. I told him that I did appreciate his faith--he was a lay-pastor of

OregonGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08096619871119860938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-37732731456446902222008-03-25T07:49:00.000-07:002008-03-25T07:49:00.000-07:00

Mine as well, Lew. As you put it, the God I know is the one whose Son said "Suffer the children to come unto me and forbid them not for such is the kingdom of heaven" and warned that "whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."To me, there is no doubt about

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-13605759179839200772008-03-24T23:09:00.000-07:002008-03-24T23:09:00.000-07:00

This may be the first test of exactly what you say, Keith.I see a ticklish area here, but I'm no attorney, either.Since they seek no medical care at all, how does the state know when to intercede? Is it a violation of their privacy and faith to be under constant scrutiny?Like I said before, I don't have the answers, but the God I learned about wouldn't let innocent children die in this manner.As

Lew Watershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06422249750094117697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-52473641921187980802008-03-24T22:51:00.000-07:002008-03-24T22:51:00.000-07:00

I don't mean to be inappropriately black-and-white on this issue but the answer to both of Victoria's questions, in my view, is a resounding yes. Technically, if a state enacted the appropriate shield, an entire universe of abusive behavior, if credibly defended as religious practice, could be exercised against children.Beyond that, however, all freedoms have their limits. The freedom to keep and

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-73170766752056211662008-03-24T18:25:00.000-07:002008-03-24T18:25:00.000-07:00

You're right, Eileen, it is a very hard question. While parents have a right to their religious beliefs, don't children have a right to a healthy life?Then again, where do we draw the line for government interference?Use Jehovah's Witnesses for an example. They don't believe in Blood transfusions and often their children are temporarily removed from their custody when a doctors decides a

Lew Watershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06422249750094117697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-13493600800453988332008-03-24T17:16:00.000-07:002008-03-24T17:16:00.000-07:00

That is a hard question.Because doing so (intervening) assumes a superior knowledge of what is really best, and should the state be in that position?Where do we draw the line.Is it not the right, who wants the state OUT OF parental decisions related to raising children?I certainly do not want to see the state punish parents, after the fact, when faith prevented them from getting appropriate

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.com