That question the CBC asked in The Fifth Estate yesterday? “When does a group’s right to religious freedom get trumped by society’s obligation to protect children?” Republican legislators in Idaho have answered it with “not when it’s a matter of life and death.”
Republican legislators in Idaho struck down a proposed law aimed at preventing the deaths of children whose parents eschew medical treatment in favor of prayer.
Boise’s KBOI reported on announcement by state House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich Wills (R), who said that House Speaker Scott Bedke (R) said there is no room on the legislative agenda to debate the bill. Bedke declined to comment, however, as to why the measure is being left off of the legislative slate.
Democratic state Rep. John Gannon proposed the measure after the deaths of several children whose parents attend Followers of Christ churches in the state. Officials estimate that some 144 children are buried in a Followers of Christ cemetery overlooking the Snake River.
Republicans like Rep. Christy Perry fought Gannon’s bill on the grounds that forcing Followers of Christ parents to take their sick and injured children to the doctor would infringe upon their religious liberty.
“This is about religious beliefs, the belief God is in charge of whether they live, and God is in charge of whether they die,” Perry said earlier this year. “This is about where they go for eternity.”
Preventing parents from letting their children die of treatable diseases would infringe upon the parents’ religious liberty (not the children’s), so let those children die.
Compassionate.
Another view:
“The secular courts of this country apply the secular law of the land. They do so equally to all who come before them. The law respects the right of everyone to freedom of thought and belief.
“However the right to manifest one’s religion is not absolute. It is limited in particular by the rights of others. The state has a particularly important duty to protect the right to life, especially when a young child is concerned.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/28/parents-jailed-manslaughter-baby-rickets
Aren’t these the same people who insist we must outlaw same-sex marriage because the production of children is in the interest of the state?
Other religious people make their way to the Dr. How about preventing Perry from going to the Dr. until he comes to his senses. Maybe give him a bunch of kidney stones to make the process faster
What about the rights of the children to live?
Children only have the right to live before they’re born, silly! /sarcasm
These politicians are only pro-life when it suits them
In effect, children have no defence at all. No protection but the whims and fancies of deluded fools.
Oh yes, the sacred freedom to act as if you knew things you don’t have any shred of reason to believe, and have made no honest effort to verify, while letting others pay the price for your uniformed, blind decisions.
This quite admirably captures what I have said earlier. This isn’t about using religion as an “excuse”, an “alibi”, a “rationalization”, a “cover”, or a “disguise”, this really is what follows – quite naturally – if you really believe what the followers of such cults actually claim to believe. I never cease to be amazed by the number of non-believers who seem to think it is perfectly reasonable to expect people to honestly believe this stuff, and still act as if pursuing petty secular interests during the infinitesimally tiny fraction of eternity spent on Earth was far more important. . To insist* that – all else being equal – a sincerely held conviction that “God is in charge of whether they die” as well as “where they go for eternity” doesn’t make anyone any more likely to let their children die, is more or less equivalent to saying that nobody really cares whether they themselves or their children get an eternity of suffering or an eternity of bliss.” Sure, you can hold such a view, but it’s not a reasonable thing to do.
_____________________________________________________________
* Often with a degree of conviction that would be hard to justify in the absence of telepathic abilities.
What is it about Republicans lately?
They champion every idiotic idea put forward by far right Christian bozos…some of whom probably consider voting a sin
It’s not good that my state keeps popping up in your blog, Ophelia — always for the wrong things, too.
We just passed a law making it illegal to film animal abuse in the agriculture industry. And we nearly passed a bill similar to the Arizona one granting permission to discriminate based on “deeply held beliefs.” And it looks like the state will allow concealed carry of gun on state-funded campuses. Now this.
Which brings up this puzzle:
If Person A is filming a cow at an agriculture school, and Student B shoots it as part of a deeply held belief in a faith-healing ceremony run by Parent C for Dying Child D … who will get the attention of the authorities?
Person A will be arrested (unless, of course, he’s in a very high tax bracket). Everyone else in the scenario will be left alone.
I don’t understand why taking the child to the doctor defeats God’s will or intentions for the child. Doctors must be more powerful than God.