• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

HIV Patients Told by Pentacostal Pastors to Rely on God.

CLAX1911 said:
This link has nothing to do with what I am saying. As i said before these people are nuts, cruel and ridiculous. But nothing in your link establishes not seeking medical treatment for you child as a crime. When i strap on my badge and gun there is nothing I would love to do more than to arrest parents that do this stuff, put their kids into temporary custody and allow them to receive the needed treatments. Because this is horrible. I can't, they haven't broken the law.

Creating such a law will be incredibly tricky.
Click to expand...
That link has to do with how we limit the Freedom of Religion. The others talk about parents convicted of murder and manslaughter etc, after their children died. One of the links will show that the parents were forced to have their child treated over their religious objections. That's not uncommon either.
 
TiredOfLife said:
Oh but we can. Just because you call it religion doesn't mean it might not endanger the child, and that's all that has to be proved. They aren't property, and the state has an interest in how you raise your child which is why school attendance is mandatory. So is feeding them, and so is taking them to a real doctor when necessary, unless you wish to face charges and we will likely charge you if your child dies.
Click to expand...
whoa there slow your roll. I don't call it religion, I call it stupid, if I was the one making laws it would be a crime to allow children to die of testable illnesses. So don't you accuse me of this nonsense.

I Am saying there is no crime here. At least nit one that can be prosecuted.

What charges will you face? Point it out to me in the penal code where it says that a child must have care from a pediatric practitioner and to nit do so would be a criminal offense.
 
CLAX1911 said:
whoa there slow your roll. I don't call it religion, I call it stupid, if I was the one making laws it would be a crime to allow children to die of testable illnesses. So don't you accuse me of this nonsense.

I Am saying there is no crime here. At least nit one that can be prosecuted.

What charges will you face? Point it out to me in the penal code where it says that a child must have care from a pediatric practitioner and to nit do so would be a criminal offense.
Click to expand...
Read the links, and study up.
 
TiredOfLife said:
That link has to do with how we limit the Freedom of Religion. The others talk about parents convicted of murder and manslaughter etc, after their children died. One of the links will show that the parents were forced to have their child treated over their religious objections. That's not uncommon either.
Click to expand...

Its pretty uncommon, I am out there watching this occur. The courts just too toothless to help. Sure I bet there are cases that get forced against the parents will and a couple of dozen get locked up for a year or two for doing so, but that is the exception.
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
The link is dead, just a blank page.

The courts are mercilessly slow and complex, we need A
An actual law that gives authority to the state to decide how far religion can go before it steps out of its usefulness. Case law isn't enough.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the real world. Freedom means people who don't need to die will.
 
TiredOfLife said:
The penal code is the state standards for all crimes against persons, and family law about parents providing for children. The rest is case law so read up.
Click to expand...

Case law is for lawyers, so they can get their clients the minimum punishment possible. That has no real teeth. Thus one case out of five hundred gets justice.

code and procedure needs to exist.as long as it doesn't there is no real crime against the state here.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Case law is for lawyers, so they can get their clients the minimum punishment possible. That has no real teeth. Thus one case out of five hundred gets justice.

code and procedure needs to exist.as long as it doesn't there is no real crime against the state here.
Click to expand...
You are pissing in the wind. It won't happen here, until religions are nearly extinct and the US will be gone long before then.
 
TiredOfLife said:
No, you said charges won't be filed and the courts won't step in. Both are incorrect.
Click to expand...

That statement is incorrect. you are contradicting yourself now. The courts don't step in, they can't except for in the most extreme cases. to call the courts anything but dismal failures in this issue is one hell of a complement.
 
CLAX1911 said:
There can't be a murder or manslaughter or even a negligent homicide in this case because the parents didn't kill the kid a virus ruined the immune system and a cold killed them.

The state cannot interfere with religious observing. I have fought this battle. Parents have the ultimate say unless the court dems them unfit to be parents. The state always loses because nobody can prove that faith in God is not better medicine than drugs and treatment. There us extensive case law on this. I knew a man that battled his ex wife for custody of his daughter she didn't go and have an ear infection treated because it was against her religion. I battled her until the daughter was 18 the ear infection occurred when she was two and cost her her hearing. The court couldn't force the mother to tend to her daughter and her medical needs because the state dissent have that authority.

This goes nowhere in court, I promise you.
Click to expand...
What are we arguing about? This nonsense of yours.
 
CLAX1911 said:
That statement is incorrect. you are contradicting yourself now. The courts don't step in, they can't except for in the most extreme cases. to call the courts anything but dismal failures in this issue is one hell of a complement.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how often, only that they do. And my statement is entirely true.
 
TiredOfLife said:
It doesn't matter how often, only that they do. And my statement is entirely true.
Click to expand...

Well if that is your measure for law, then you are perfectly happy with the amount of murderers that go unconvinced because the numbers are extraordinarily higher than the pathetic handful of wing and prayer cases on this. In fact we could probably slack off a bit because your standards are pathetically low.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well if that is your measure for law, then you are perfectly happy with the amount of murderers that go unconvinced because the numbers are extraordinarily higher than the pathetic handful of wing and prayer cases on this. In fact we could probably slack off a bit because your standards are pathetically low.
Click to expand...
The difference is between low and no. You said no, and you were incorrect. As for convictions, better to let 100 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent.

When kids are not treated of as property of their parents by the state, and they mostly are, then we'll talk but that won't happen here. We are still pretty English Common Law so beat the little buggers with a stick as you like and keep them out of our hair.
 
CLAX1911 said:
What good is this comment? this isn't nonsense do you think that its good that parents can let their children die?
Click to expand...

I think it's America. I have a 100 million gun nuts with Bibles here, but most of them take their kids to the doctor when they get sick. Learn to pick your battles.
 
TiredOfLife said:
The difference is between low and no. You said no, and you were incorrect. As for convictions, better to let 100 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent.

When kids are not treated of as property of their parents by the state, and they mostly are, then we'll talk but that won't happen here. We are still pretty English Common Law so beat the little buggers with a stick as you like and keep them out of our hair.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, one conviction in hundreds of thousands, that isn't illegal. So i was right from the get go, thus isn't illegal, courts can't convict and there is no statutory crime committed.

I don't really care about punishing the perps after the killed people, that really isn't a victory. an ounce of prevention is better than ten tons of to late. It needs to be a crime otherwise it isn't illegal. I don't know why that is so difficult for you.
 
CLAX1911 said:
The state always loses because nobody can prove that faith in God is not better medicine than drugs and treatment.
Click to expand...

That's really easy to prove. Group 1 uses faith, Group 2 uses medicine. Results... case closed - medicine works better. That's not why parents have authority over their children's treatment.
 
TiredOfLife said:
I think it's America. I have a 100 million gun nuts with Bibles here, but most of them take their kids to the doctor when they get sick. Learn to pick your battles.
Click to expand...

This thread is about parents refusing to treat their ill children, learn to read thread titles. Bibles and guns are way off subject.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I am sorry, one conviction in hundreds of thousands, that isn't illegal. So i was right from the get go, thus isn't illegal, courts can't convict and there is no statutory crime committed.

I don't really care about punishing the perps after the killed people, that really isn't a victory. an ounce of prevention is better than ten tons of to late. It needs to be a crime otherwise it isn't illegal. I don't know why that is so difficult for you.
Click to expand...
But the courts have convicted! Are you on drugs? And you weren't right, your statements on it are wrong. And we won't be passing laws on this. It's not a crime to believe a bunch of wacky religious nonsense, and it never will be here. With that, I'm out for the night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom