Sent to prison for religious belief

[Judith]

Did the government and this judge violate their first amendment rights.
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/crime...nt-to-prison-for-2nd-prayer-death-5247062.php

 

[Revmitchell]

Their belief was foolish and it resulted in deaths. They went to ail for negligence not religion.

 

[Judith]

Their belief was foolish and it resulted in deaths. They went to ail for negligence not religion.

I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you I am simply looking for a deeper answer. So based on your statement that they were foolish if the government feels a Christian family is foolish for home schooling should they also be prosecuted? In other words where is the line for religious freedom. Let me remind you that this is NOT a new practice within Christianity and the founders NEVER prosecuted people who followed this method. So if it was acceptable under the first amendment in the beginning of this country why not now?

 

[Revmitchell]

I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you I am simply looking for a deeper answer. So based on your statement that they were foolish if the government feels a Christian family is foolish for home schooling should they also be prosecuted? In other words where is the line for religious freedom. Let me remind you that this is NOT a new practice within Christianity and the founders NEVER prosecuted people who followed this method. So if it was acceptable under the first amendment in the beginning of this country why not now?

Uh no.....what parents need to to is not neglect their children to the point of death, which is what these parents did. Aside the fact that their doctrine was foolish it led to the deaths of their children.

The problem here is not their beliefs but that their beliefs led to some deaths that could have been easily avoided.

 

[Judith]

Uh no.....what parents need to to is not neglect their children to the point of death, which is what these parents did. Aside the fact that their doctrine was foolish it led to the deaths of their children.

The problem here is not their beliefs but that their beliefs led to some deaths that could have been easily avoided.

You did not answer my post. If it was once correct under the constitution why is it not today? Exactly how far should the government go? What if the government feels it is dangerous for you to teach your children the 6 day creation? What are the parameters in this? Is it as long as it does not result in death? I don't think it can be said that they neglected their children. They prayed and followed their faith even if someone else feels it is wrong. So do we allow the practice of religion unless our government feels it is wrong? Again our country in the beginning saw no problem legally with this practice, what has changed?

 

[JonC]

Good point. There are many who believe that a Christian home school amounts to child abuse. I do not believe that the judge violated their first amendment rights because the victim here was a minor. It would be different, IMHO, if it were an adult declining medical care based on religious beliefs. But that does put into question the role government can potentially play in how we raise our children.

 

[Judith]

Good point. There are many who believe that a Christian home school amounts to child abuse. I do not believe that the judge violated their first amendment rights because the victim here was a minor. It would be different, IMHO, if it were an adult declining medical care based on religious beliefs. But that does put into question the role government can potentially play in how we raise our children.

Jon that last part is my point, and I would point out also that people home school minors. My point is this is a slippery slope. They did not literally kill their child out of neglect. The child died because they relied on their beliefs. This is why I ask at what point does the government condemn our beliefs and arrest us or remove our children when the constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Has the government violated the constitution by stopping them from freely exercising their religious beliefs?

Personally I am of the mind-set that these people are in the same camp of snake handlers, but based on the constitution they should not have been prosecuted as it opens the door to all of our religious freedoms being stripped away one by one and again the early years of this country this practice was not forbidden or punished. Frowned upon, yes, but not punished or restricted by the government becauase of the first amendment.

Perhaps the constitution needs changing, but never violated.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am lost here, how is homeschooling comparable to the deaths of these children?

 

[Judith]

I am lost here, how is homeschooling comparable to the deaths of these children?

It is not. And yes you are confused if you are looking at this like that. The comparison about home schooling is to the right to practice your religious beliefs as well is the belief in healing in regards to what the constitution says. Home schooling is simply a sincere religious belief by some.

What if the child had lived? Would their practice then be acceptable under the law? This is not about the death of a child. This is about do we have the right to practice our sincere religious beliefs as the constitution states? The death of the children only brings to light what some believes. I would remind everyone that based on most Christians beliefs the child got a promotion and went to heaven at death. It never had to suffer the sins of this world.

So should the constitution be changed or do we want to leave it in the government's hands to make judgments on a case by case event depending on who is setting on the court or do we want all to be allowed to practice their constitutional freedoms? You cannot strip away one's freedom and not expect someone else to say yours is in question because they do not agree with what you practice. This is what is happening with the second amendment. The government keeps stripping away certain peoples right to that freedom and one day it will be gone for all or just a select few. The same can happen here.

 

[Revmitchell]

It doesn't matter if the child lived.




Two children died because they did not receive the medical care they needed. Nothing else matters.

 

[JonC]

Jon that last part is my point, and I would point out also that people home school minors. My point is this is a slippery slope. They did not literally kill their child out of neglect. The child died because they relied on their beliefs. This is why I ask at what point does the government condemn our beliefs and arrest us or remove our children when the constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Has the government violated the constitution by stopping them from freely exercising their religious beliefs?

Personally I am of the mind-set that these people are in the same camp of snake handlers, but based on the constitution they should not have been prosecuted as it opens the door to all of our religious freedoms being stripped away one by one and again the early years of this country this practice was not forbidden or punished. Frowned upon, yes, but not punished or restricted by the government becauase of the first amendment.

Perhaps the constitution needs changing, but never violated.

I don’t know. It is difficult to look at the situation and determine that they should not be punished, but at the same time we are responsible for children’s care. The parents were not acting out of cruel intentions, they were in fact doing what they believed was best. It is a tragic situation. Perhaps it is not the parents right to religion that was considered as much as the child's right to life. In a way, it was the parents who violated the child's rights here.

I suppose a line does have to be drawn. I once worked with a young lady who as a child was sexually abused by her parents (and their friends) because it was a part of a ritual that they observed. I don’t believe that this could be defended under freedom of religion. Likewise, the child of the parents in question has a rights, which was deprived by the actions of her parents. It’s a situation where the parents freedom of religion is violated or the child right of life and liberty is violated (I say this because I gather that this was an illness that could have been remedied through medical care).

But there are people who see raising a child to believe in God as child abuse and depriving them of a worldview that will enable them to thrive when they are adults. I do think that this will be an issue in years to come.

 

[Don]

I don't mean to be facetious about this subject; but remember that story about the guy who climbed on his roof during a flood and prayed for God to save him? A raft went by, then a boat, then a helicopter; each time, he refused them, saying "God will save me." In the end, he drowned; and when he was in front of God, he asked: "Why didn't you save me from the flood?" To which God replied, "I sent you a raft, a boat, and a helicopter...."

I'm not trying to be facetious. My point is, did these people miss the answer to their prayers?

From what I read in the article, they're accepting that they legally allowed both of their children to die, and are accepting their legal punishment for doing so.

I would have to say that I'm not positive that their Constitutional rights were intruded upon. But I'm also not sure that the Constitution covers this situation, just as I'm not sure it addresses murder or thievery.

 

[TCassidy]

To deny the power of medicine is to deny the power of Christ in nature, the source of medicine.

 

[Revmitchell]

UH two children died only because their parents, who were responsible to see to their well being, refused reasonable medical care.


Do you get that. Two children died.


Needlessly I might add.


The only thing wrong in this situation is the knothead parents poor judgment.


There is no constitutional crisis here.

 

[annsni]

They killed their children. It had nothing to do with religion. They deserve to go to jail.

 

[Revmitchell]

They killed their children. It had nothing to do with religion. They deserve to go to jail.

Helloooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:BangHead:

 

[JonC]

We all probably agree that God uses medicine as a mode and gifts doctors. It is not a case of denying a freedom of religion because if it were truly denied then the children may be alive today. If one assumed that the parents were right in their decision (which I do not see anyone here doing that) then they should rejoice in this persecution and suffering for their faith. I don't read the OP to be suggesting that it was OK for these children to die, just questioning the lines insofar as the freedom that we have to practice religion.

This is more of the issue I have with the general thrust of the OP

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/01/texas-family-battles-judge-over-homeschooling/

 

[exscentric]

OR has a church like that and a number of kids have died. We now have laws that nail folks like this. Those that have been convicted realize if they fail the law thy will pay. As things go in the country we may be in similar circumstance and need to make the choice of obey laws or God. Not that I think the parents are right. After all Luke the physician recorded "Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick."

 

[padredurand]

UH two children died only because their parents, who were responsible to see to their well being, refused reasonable medical care.


Do you get that. Two children died.


Needlessly I might add.


The only thing wrong in this situation is the knothead parents poor judgment.


There is no constitutional crisis here.

From the cited article:

Judge Benjamin Lerner rejected defense claims that their religious beliefs "clashed" with the 2011 court order to get annual checkups and call a doctor if a child became ill. The order came after a jury convicted them of involuntary manslaughter in Kent's death, and they were sentenced to 10 years of probation.

"April of 2013 wasn't Brandon's time to die," Lerner said, noting the violence committed throughout human history in the name of religion. "You've killed two of your children. ... Not God. Not your church. Not religious devotion. You."

There is probably some knothead out there who will have a so-called religious conviction to feed his kids only food brought to them by ravens.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It is not. And yes you are confused if you are looking at this like that.

Sorry, Judith, but the confusion is coming from the OP, and you continue it here:

The comparison about home schooling is to the right to practice your religious beliefs as well is the belief in healing in regards to what the constitution says. Home schooling is simply a sincere religious belief by some.

So what? Home schooling is not dangerous. Denial of healthcare services is. The confusion comes from your alleged "slippery slope." The two are not even remotely connected, yet you connected them in the OP.

What if the child had lived? Would their practice then be acceptable under the law? This is not about the death of a child.

Judith, Judith, Judith ...

This is precisely about the death of a child!! More specifically, about child welfare, proper parenting, reasonable care. How can you say it is not?

This is about do we have the right to practice our sincere religious beliefs as the constitution states?

It isn't about "freedom to practice our religious beliefs" either. It is about child welfare, proper parenting, reasonable care.

The death of the children only brings to light what some believes.

The death of a child brings to light the insanity of some who would go to "religious" extremes to practice their "faith" rather than provide the reasonable care a child (and not inconsequentially, the state) should expect from parents.

I would remind everyone that based on most Christians beliefs the child got a promotion and went to heaven at death. It never had to suffer the sins of this world.

Looking upon parental negligence as a "blessing" for the dead child? Really?? You can't be serious!

So should the constitution be changed or do we want to leave it in the government's hands to make judgments on a case by case event depending on who is setting on the court or do we want all to be allowed to practice their constitutional freedoms?

Good grief, NO!!

You cannot strip away one's freedom and not expect someone else to say yours is in question because they do not agree with what you practice.

And yet again, not only from this post but from others, it isn't about religious freedom!!!

This is what is happening with the second amendment.

No. It is not a Second Amendment issue. It is a child welfare issue.d

The government keeps stripping away certain peoples right to that freedom and one day it will be gone for all or just a select few. The same can happen here.

The child's death has absolutely nothing to do with your supposition. You are far off the mark in reading "religious freedom" into this case.