PDA

View Full Version : I was watching an episode of Family Guy and...




nodeal
02-07-2012, 01:58 AM
In the episode Lois and Peter kidnap a child because the child had cancer and his parents refused to give him medical treatment due to their religious beliefs. They believed that only prayer and faith should be administered to treat illness, and Lois thought this was morally wrong.

It got me thinking, I'm always emphasizing parents' rights especially as it relates to education, but what is the answer in a situation like this? What if there are parents who do not believe in modern medicine, and therefore endanger the health of their child by not treating them in serious situations such as cancer, or don't provide their child with fundamental medical care?

Actually, now that I'm on the subject... What do you do about parental negligence? What if there was no social services? What is the answer to these types of problems that doesn't involve government?

kuckfeynes
02-07-2012, 02:13 AM
None of my business. I don't believe in aspects of modern medicine either.

tttppp
02-07-2012, 02:14 AM
In the episode Lois and Peter kidnap a child because the child had cancer and his parents refused to give him medical treatment due to their religious beliefs. They believed that only prayer and faith should be administered to treat illness, and Lois thought this was morally wrong.

It got me thinking, I'm always emphasizing parents' rights especially as it relates to education, but what is the answer in a situation like this? What if there are parents who do not believe in modern medicine, and therefore endanger the health of their child by not treating them in serious situations such as cancer, or don't provide their child with fundamental medical care?

Actually, now that I'm on the subject... What do you do about parental negligence? What if there was no social services? What is the answer to these types of problems that doesn't involve government?

There are no cures in western medicine. All treatments in western medicine have side effects, some of them severe. Its not an easy decision to simply treat an illness with western medicine. What about in situations where parents give their kids psychiatric medications for simple behavioral problems? I would consider that negligence.

Its impossible to police everyone into making the right decisions, but you can to some extent regulate the medical services provided so that nobody can misrepresent their services. If a priest or whoever they call him treats an illness with prayer, he should be held accountable just like a doctor would. He should have to disclose up front his success rate at the very least.

CaptainAmerica
02-07-2012, 02:24 AM
In the episode Lois and Peter kidnap a child because the child had cancer and his parents refused to give him medical treatment due to their religious beliefs. They believed that only prayer and faith should be administered to treat illness, and Lois thought this was morally wrong.

It got me thinking, I'm always emphasizing parents' rights especially as it relates to education, but what is the answer in a situation like this? What if there are parents who do not believe in modern medicine, and therefore endanger the health of their child by not treating them in serious situations such as cancer, or don't provide their child with fundamental medical care?

Actually, now that I'm on the subject... What do you do about parental negligence? What if there was no social services? What is the answer to these types of problems that doesn't involve government?

You could easily say that kids who have cavities should be taken away from their parents because of negligence to make their kids eat healthier and brush their teeth.

mello
02-07-2012, 02:33 AM
Sometimes parents are straight-up morons when it comes to the power of prayer healing a sick child. One story I remembered from years ago involved a pair of super-religious parents that had a 10-year old kid with an intestinal blockage. Instead of a simple surgical procedure to clear the blockage, the parents laid hands on their kids & prayed. I think it took 2-3 weeks for the kid to slowly die an agonizing death filling up with shit.

There were another more recent story about a pair of vegans that thought it would be a good idea for their newborn baby to fed a vegan diet. So instead of breast milk they were feeding their baby juices & other vegan crap. If I remember the story correctly, the baby survived for about a year before dying. The baby didn't gain weight or size at all during that year.

Just because people can have babies doesn't mean that everyone should.

John F Kennedy III
02-07-2012, 02:51 AM
I too watched this episode on adult swim tonight.

Lishy
02-07-2012, 02:59 AM
Children have liberties too. Thus, I do believe the government does play a role in helping children receive the health care they deserve. A lot of what these super-religious parents are doing is called child-abuse, and they should be tried for that.

And let's not beat around the bush here. Religious freedom is one thing, magic is another.

There is no such thing as magic which could magically make sickness go away. And if you insist there is, without proof or explanation, then you defy the will of the god who has not intervened in humanity for thousands of years.

If you honestly believe you can pray away the worst of illnesses, you are a horrible parent who places your selfish own fantasy world above that of your own child.

Like I said: The child has liberties too. Just like it's wrong to abort a fetus, isn't it wrong to kill a child because one would rather believe that which is both scientifically, and religiously impossible?

SCOTUSman
02-07-2012, 03:13 AM
State issue.

noneedtoaggress
02-07-2012, 03:20 AM
Children have liberties too. Thus, I do believe the government does play a role in helping children receive the health care they deserve. A lot of what these super-religious parents are doing is called child-abuse, and they should be tried for that.

And let's not beat around the bush here. Religious freedom is one thing, magic is another.

There is no such thing as magic which could magically make sickness go away. And if you insist there is, without proof or explanation, then you defy the will of the god who has not intervened in humanity for thousands of years.

If you honestly believe you can pray away the worst of illnesses, you are a horrible parent who places your selfish own fantasy world above that of your own child.

Like I said: The child has liberties too. Just like it's wrong to abort a fetus, isn't it wrong to kill a child because one would rather believe that which is both scientifically, and religiously impossible?

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/gardasil-logo21.jpg

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk208/lolosad/gardasil/HPV.jpg

onlyrp
02-07-2012, 03:20 AM
In the episode Lois and Peter kidnap a child because the child had cancer and his parents refused to give him medical treatment due to their religious beliefs. They believed that only prayer and faith should be administered to treat illness, and Lois thought this was morally wrong.

It got me thinking, I'm always emphasizing parents' rights especially as it relates to education, but what is the answer in a situation like this? What if there are parents who do not believe in modern medicine, and therefore endanger the health of their child by not treating them in serious situations such as cancer, or don't provide their child with fundamental medical care?

Actually, now that I'm on the subject... What do you do about parental negligence? What if there was no social services? What is the answer to these types of problems that doesn't involve government?

what kind of Fascist are you if you don't believe a parent has a right to endanger their child because of their religious beliefs and skepticism of modern pharma scam?

Parental negligence is a legal fiction, a made up crime for liberals who want to force parents to behave in ways contrary to freedom. If there were no social services, children would be educated, happy and healthy (that's like OBVIOUS for anybody who's been on a libertarian discussion board). I don't see what the "problem" is, apparently you're brainwashed by the liberal media and education system to think that freedom is a problem.

onlyrp
02-07-2012, 03:21 AM
State issue.

whether a parent has a right to choose their child's medicine is a STATE ISSUE?? So you're a Statist?

lilymc
02-07-2012, 03:47 AM
Children have liberties too. Thus, I do believe the government does play a role in helping children receive the health care they deserve. A lot of what these super-religious parents are doing is called child-abuse, and they should be tried for that.

And let's not beat around the bush here. Religious freedom is one thing, magic is another.

There is no such thing as magic which could magically make sickness go away. And if you insist there is, without proof or explanation, then you defy the will of the god who has not intervened in humanity for thousands of years.

If you honestly believe you can pray away the worst of illnesses, you are a horrible parent who places your selfish own fantasy world above that of your own child.

Like I said: The child has liberties too. Just like it's wrong to abort a fetus, isn't it wrong to kill a child because one would rather believe that which is both scientifically, and religiously impossible?

The problem isn't prayer or faith... the problem is when people lack wisdom or common sense, and when they misunderstand what God's will is. God can use a surgery or modern medical procedures as a way of healing a child. This topic reminds me of that old joke about a guy stranded in the ocean, and a log floats by but he ignores it, saying "God will rescue me." Then later a boat comes and he refuses it, saying, "No, God will rescue me." Then later a helicopter comes by and lowers a rope, but he refuses, saying the same thing. So he dies and goes to heaven and asks God why He didn't rescue him. And God said, "I sent you a log, a boat and a helicopter, what more did you want?" :p

My point is, don't put the blame on prayer or faith - just because some people may have foolishly misunderstood God's will, leading to a tragic result. And not to open up a can of worms here, but contrary to what you said in your post, God DOES intervene, I've seen more than enough examples of that in my life and in the lives of people I know. And prayer IS powerful, but I don't expect to convince you, you sound like you've already made up your mind, just from reading a few of your posts today.

Jtorsella
02-07-2012, 03:55 AM
what kind of Fascist are you if you don't believe a parent has a right to endanger their child because of their religious beliefs and skepticism of modern pharma scam?

Parental negligence is a legal fiction, a made up crime for liberals who want to force parents to behave in ways contrary to freedom. If there were no social services, children would be educated, happy and healthy (that's like OBVIOUS for anybody who's been on a libertarian discussion board). I don't see what the "problem" is, apparently you're brainwashed by the liberal media and education system to think that freedom is a problem.
So a parent has the right to endanger their own child? Bullcrap. Children are human too. They have natural rights. Letting a parent use them as a guinea pig is just ignoring their right to liberty.

noneedtoaggress
02-07-2012, 04:06 AM
So a parent has the right to endanger their own child? Bullcrap. Children are human too. They have natural rights. Letting a parent use them as a guinea pig is just ignoring their right to liberty.

I declare that parents driving children around 60 miles an hour in a 2 ton machine of metal and glass that is propelled by explosions are negligent and endangering their child.

lilymc
02-07-2012, 04:13 AM
So a parent has the right to endanger their own child? Bullcrap. Children are human too. They have natural rights. Letting a parent use them as a guinea pig is just ignoring their right to liberty.

I'm pretty sure *he was being sarcastic.



*onlyrp

Jtorsella
02-07-2012, 04:19 AM
I declare that parents driving children around 60 miles an hour in a 2 ton machine of metal and glass that is propelled by explosions are negligent and endangering their child.
Child endangerment is a floating standard. But there's not really much leeway when a kid is dying from cancer because the parents are refusing treatment.

noneedtoaggress
02-07-2012, 04:27 AM
What is the "authorized" treatment for cancer?

Gardasil maybe?

Jtorsella
02-07-2012, 04:29 AM
What is the "authorized" treatment for cancer?
That's the big problem. How is the child's right to life and liberty protected? To be honest, I have no clue.

noneedtoaggress
02-07-2012, 04:39 AM
That's the big problem. How is the child's right to life and liberty protected? To be honest, I have no clue.

Likely not by threatening to use force to rip someone else's kids from their parents because you disagree with them about how they should to treat their own ailing child.

One of the issues is this hypothetical scenario is very abstract. Does this child have the capacity to make decisions about their health on their own? Is the parent restricting the child from getting the treatment they want? If the parents are doing something that most people think is wrong can you try to publicize it so that they will be socially ostracized and possibly convinced to try something more acceptable by the mainstream? Etc, etc.

Jtorsella
02-07-2012, 04:46 AM
Likely not by threatening to use force to rip someone else's kids from their parents because you disagree with them about how they should to treat their own ailing child.

One of the issues is this hypothetical scenario is very abstract. Does this child have the capacity to make decisions about their health on their own? Is the parent restricting the child from getting the treatment they want? If the parents are doing something that most people think is wrong can you try to publicize it so that they will be socially ostracized? Etc, etc.
No I completely agree. Putting the authority in the hands of the government would definitely lead to abuse. I was just taking issue with the other person for implying that the parent has every right to endanger a conscious kid.

enoch150
02-07-2012, 05:01 AM
Parents and children have a kind of contract. The parents agree to care for the child and the child agrees to obey the parent's rules.

If the parents violate their side of the contract, then the child is not obligated to follow his parent's wishes. The child has the final say on getting treatment or not. Charities will pick up the costs.

What happens after is between the parent and the child. It may involve adoption or foster care.

mczerone
02-07-2012, 05:15 AM
Due process. And I trust the free market to handle it better than a monopoly.

JuicyG
02-07-2012, 05:46 AM
Government wants a uniform population across the board and that`s best achieved through intrusion. The Nazis for example put all Jehova`s witnesses in concentration camps for refusing to join the army.

Yes, there are many cases when abuses happen in families. Father raping their kids, bloody beatings and so on. There are also religious issues such as accepting blood transfusions for example. Jehova`s witnesses oppose it and that basically causes deaths. So there are different many kind of abuses going on one could argue.

Best solutions are to be found at local level where community reaches a consensus on how to deal with these issues. We may or may not agree how that community solves those issue but having state imposing 1 size fits all solution on everybody is not the answer. There are tribes in Papua new guinea and Indonesia that practice cannibalism to this day or burn people at stake, there also are amazon tribes that bury their kids alive in rituals. They should be left to evolve with their own devices. Interference causes more harm than good in the long run, because it creates an uneven, unbalanced society.

On a different side note; a previous poster said he doesn`t trust modern medicine because of some medication having side effects. I find this statement a bit obtuse.
Even good food has side effects. Everything has side effects. Every decision we make has side effects. Every decision brings with it a level of sacrifice, because you sacrifice one thing to gain another. For example, people who are big savers know this better, because you do make sacrifices when saving money such as depriving yourself of certain items perhaps, but you know it will do more good than harm in the long run. There is a very interesting German saying "Wer die Wahl hat, hat die Qual" which roughly translates into "He who has to choose has to go through pain."
Let`s take the example of blood transfusion which Jehova`s reject. I may dislike blood transfusion from some obese individual who`s blood is full of cholesterol or risk getting some blood disease, but when I weigh that against dying, choice is pretty obvious.

Tod
02-07-2012, 05:59 AM
what kind of Fascist are you if you don't believe a parent has a right to endanger their child because of their religious beliefs and skepticism of modern pharma scam?

Parental negligence is a legal fiction, a made up crime for liberals who want to force parents to behave in ways contrary to freedom. If there were no social services, children would be educated, happy and healthy (that's like OBVIOUS for anybody who's been on a libertarian discussion board). I don't see what the "problem" is, apparently you're brainwashed by the liberal media and education system to think that freedom is a problem.

A friend of mine works for child protective services, and if the stories he has told have ANY shred of truth, you are way off base. Some people who have no business being parents somehow, through biology, do, and it is not a pretty sight. Perhaps incest, bones broken through beatings, etc just are outside of your imagination.

JuicyG
02-07-2012, 06:10 AM
A friend of mine works for child protective services, and if the stories he has told have ANY shred of truth, you are way off base. Some people who have no business being parents somehow, through biology, do, and it is not a pretty sight. Perhaps incest, bones broken through beatings, etc just are outside of your imagination.

I agree. I know many of such cases, many that happened in my city, even someone I know was abused. A girl some family friends adopted was repeatedly sexually abused by a state worker.

So basically we pick bigger evil over lesser evil. In this case, the bigger evil also involves lots of government subsidies.

Revolution0918
02-07-2012, 06:43 AM
Ill tell you this......i know chemo and various madern medicine has helped people and cured some of cancer......i recently watched my dad die of cancer and go through 9 rounds of chemo.....no1 will EVER tell me that chemo helps people.....even when u win....you lose

Warrior_of_Freedom
02-07-2012, 06:49 AM
Who do you trust more with kids, their parents or the government?

NYgs23
02-07-2012, 07:05 AM
In cases where the parents violate the child's rights, obviously it's a crime as much as any other crime. It shouldn't be handled by the state, though, which is inefficient and violent in everything it does. The state is just as liable to snatch children from decent families as it is leave children with abusive ones. Voluntary child protection organizations could exist to investigate these matters and bring it to voluntary courts if they feel a child is the victim of aggression. In the furthest extreme, they might try to take the child by force. However, they would then have to prove that the child was actually being abused or otherwise they themselves would be guilty of child abduction.

Anti Federalist
02-07-2012, 07:12 AM
Children?

Hell, they are moving to have adults medicated against their will.


If progression of promising vaccines from the lab to the clinic is to remain unaffected and financial inducement is an ethically unacceptable solution to the recruitment shortage, other strategies need to be considered. Compulsory involvement in vaccine studies is one alternative solution that is not as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration. Many societies already mandate that citizens undertake activities for the good of society; in several European countries registration for organ-donation has switched from “opt-in” (the current U.S. system) to “opt-out” systems (in which those who do not specifically register as nondonors are presumed to consent to donation) [10], and most societies expect citizens to undertake jury service when called upon. In these examples, the risks or inconvenience to an individual are usually limited and minor. Mandatory involvement in vaccine trials is therefore perhaps more akin to military conscription, a policy operating today in 66 countries. In both conscription and obligatory trial participation, individuals have little or no choice regarding involvement and face inherent risks over which they have no control, all for the greater good of society.

http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/01/pfor1-1201.html

Czolgosz
02-07-2012, 07:17 AM
Funny, I also watched it tonight (fox delays for 8 days).

It's the parent's decision, though wacky from my perspective.

Further, we need not be obsessed with the quality of *every* life, that we take measures to protect it. The species will continue on, people in general don't do stuff that'll get them killed off prematurely.

GunnyFreedom
02-07-2012, 07:29 AM
Children?

Hell, they are moving to have adults medicated against their will.

I have several thousand self-contained chemically propelled subdermal metallic injections to return the favor.

ETA: In the way of justification, I will be sure and scream "it's for the good of society!" several times while administering the treatment.

otherone
02-07-2012, 07:33 AM
Speaking of "Family Guy", I find it amusing that anyone under the age of 50 would vote for Gingrich or Obama having been raised on "Star Wars". Aren't we all indoctrinated to despise Evil Empires? Or was the trick to make the Tyranny long ago and far away?

VBRonPaulFan
02-07-2012, 07:59 AM
it is the parents obligation to raise their child. if the child somehow dies in something like this, and another family member thinks they were negligent - they should take them to court. each situation is different and needs to generally be looked at by a case by case basis. at the very least, parents who refuse treament x, y, or z and allow the child to die should have their day in court to tell their story and be judged by their peers, there isn't some 'government should do X solution'.

things like this are exactly what state/local courts are for. me personally? this could be a tough decision depending on circumstances. some people place far too much stock in their faith, and other people make science practically their religion.

PaulConventionWV
02-07-2012, 08:10 AM
In the episode Lois and Peter kidnap a child because the child had cancer and his parents refused to give him medical treatment due to their religious beliefs. They believed that only prayer and faith should be administered to treat illness, and Lois thought this was morally wrong.

It got me thinking, I'm always emphasizing parents' rights especially as it relates to education, but what is the answer in a situation like this? What if there are parents who do not believe in modern medicine, and therefore endanger the health of their child by not treating them in serious situations such as cancer, or don't provide their child with fundamental medical care?

Actually, now that I'm on the subject... What do you do about parental negligence? What if there was no social services? What is the answer to these types of problems that doesn't involve government?

I don't think you understand liberty that much. Also, you approach this question as if modern medicine were the undeniable standard of better health these days. Never mind that it has been the #1 killer in America per year. A lot of the side effects include death or paralysis or some similarly life-threatening complications. It is just silly that people think this is the way to health.

Regardless, Family Guy has always been an uber liberal show. I hate it when they express their views like it is the unadulterated, unbiased truth of the universe that God doesn't exist, and that gay marriage is right and government is good. I love the show for its humor, but sometimes it goes too far in its anti-religious mockery.

jkr
02-07-2012, 08:11 AM
AND this is on FOX.
where all those "christians" hang out.
we are being played

Hospitaller
02-07-2012, 08:48 AM
Father or mother raping their kids, bloody beatings and so on.

Fixed, you are brainwashed if you think that only men commit sexual assault.

onlyrp
02-07-2012, 10:48 AM
So a parent has the right to endanger their own child? Bullcrap. Children are human too. They have natural rights. Letting a parent use them as a guinea pig is just ignoring their right to liberty.

I suppose you're accusing us for ignoring a person's right to liberty if he doesn't live in our country and we don't exercise jurisdiction, intervention when they are violated? Are you advocating using force in the name of liberty?

onlyrp
02-07-2012, 10:49 AM
A friend of mine works for child protective services, and if the stories he has told have ANY shred of truth, you are way off base. Some people who have no business being parents somehow, through biology, do, and it is not a pretty sight. Perhaps incest, bones broken through beatings, etc just are outside of your imagination.

Who is your friend, or anybody, to tell a person whether he has business being a parent?

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 10:55 AM
When one person harms another it is the responsibility of the state to protect. That is not anti-liberty.

onlyrp
02-07-2012, 10:57 AM
When one person harms another it is the responsibility of the state to protect. That is not anti-liberty.

at what cost are you willing to give the state power to protect against "harm"?

otherone
02-07-2012, 11:00 AM
it is the responsibility of the state to protect. That is not anti-liberty.

It is the responsibility of the state to prosecute offenders. Giving the state powers of 'protection' has opened the doors to all manner of tyrannical mischief.

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 11:02 AM
It is the responsibility of the state to prosecute offenders. Giving the state powers of 'protection' has opened the doors to all manner of tyrannical mischief.

ok

but what about children? they have no way of protecting themselves against ignorant parents.

seraphson
02-07-2012, 11:04 AM
Ill tell you this......i know chemo and various madern medicine has helped people and cured some of cancer......i recently watched my dad die of cancer and go through 9 rounds of chemo.....no1 will EVER tell me that chemo helps people.....even when u win....you lose

I don't like how this post was kind of overlooked. But it's the truth. Chemo can save lives but we must also consider the quality of life to be expected after the treatment (just as much during the treatment). Fate can be a cruel mistress and we have to realize that we can't always defy her.

Tod
02-07-2012, 11:06 AM
The Catholic Church is a voluntary organization, and there was TONS of abuse there, and not only was there abuse, but the hierarchy covered it up. So the argument that a voluntary organization is necessarily going to be better holds no water.

ANY organization, whether voluntary or state, that is going to investigate crimes and solve problems necessarily has to have the ability to impose against the perpetrator's will, otherwise the perpetrator will continue the crimes.

otherone
02-07-2012, 11:10 AM
ok

but what about children? they have no way of protecting themselves against ignorant parents.

It's called 'due process'. Children aren't the only victims in society. If a crime is committed, we have mechanisms in place to deal with it. The presumption of innocence is the keystone of our criminal justice system. Take seat belt laws....sounds like a great idea, right? But by advocating those laws, you are advocating having an officer peer into your vehicle to enforce those laws. We have become a nation of sheep looking to the 'government' for direction.

BrittanySligar
02-07-2012, 11:14 AM
Let natural selection run its course. I mean that in the most altruistic way possible.

On a related note, just think, if we had eliminated religion already, Ron Paul would be president.

Ron got 55% of the atheist vote in NV, and over 50% in IA.

Tod
02-07-2012, 11:20 AM
Who is your friend, or anybody, to tell a person whether he has business being a parent?

How about anyone who has been a victim of such abuse? Would you tell a child that they have to endure abuse (assuming you could separate out the fact that the child knows nothing else)? How evil is THAT?

Tod
02-07-2012, 11:22 AM
Let natural selection run its course. I mean that in the most altruistic way possible.

On a related note, just think, if we had eliminated religion already, Ron Paul would be president.

Ron got 55% of the atheist vote in NV, and over 50% in IA.

You are assuming that Ron Paul would be the same person without his own religion.

Superfly
02-07-2012, 11:23 AM
Let natural selection run its course. I mean that in the most altruistic way possible.

On a related note, just think, if we had eliminated religion already, Ron Paul would be president.

Ron got 55% of the atheist vote in NV, and over 50% in IA.If we eliminated religion, RP wouldn't have come to the conclusions outlining his policies as he repeatedly states. Not that atheists can't come to the liberty message, but thinking religion and liberty are antithetical is a mistake.

BrittanySligar
02-07-2012, 11:27 AM
You are assuming that Ron Paul would be the same person without his own religion.

Morality and religion can be mutually exclusive.

Superfly
02-07-2012, 11:30 AM
Morality and religion are not mutually exclusive.I think you misspoke. You seem to be saying that religion and morality CAN be mutually exclusive. Otherwise you'd be saying you can't have morality without religion...whiiiich I'm fairly sure is not your stance.

BrittanySligar
02-07-2012, 11:30 AM
If we eliminated religion, RP wouldn't have come to the conclusions outlining his policies as he repeatedly states. Not that atheists can't come to the liberty message, but thinking religion and liberty are antithetical is a mistake.

You're right. You can't understand austrian economics and libertariansm without religion. :rolleyes:

Superfly
02-07-2012, 11:32 AM
You're right. You can't understand austrian economics and libertariansm without religion. :rolleyes:Wasn't saying that. I think I actually specifically said that atheists can come to the liberty message.

JuicyG
02-07-2012, 11:33 AM
If we eliminated religion, RP wouldn't have come to the conclusions outlining his policies as he repeatedly states. Not that atheists can't come to the liberty message, but thinking religion and liberty are antithetical is a mistake.

Unfortunately you can`t be elected as US president if you claim you`re agnostic or atheist. I believe even Gingrich emphasized this at some debate, saying he won`t vote for an atheist.

So basically for any president to be elected they have to claim they believe in God which is pretty sad.

I don`t believe Ron Paul`s stance on most issues would have been different had he not been religious. It`s likely though he wouldn`t have gone through changing his stance on death penalty had he been atheist. He probably would have had an anti-death penalty stance from the beginning. He was initially for death penalty, than changed his mind and went against it.

BrittanySligar
02-07-2012, 11:33 AM
I think you misspoke. You seem to be saying that religion and morality CAN be mutually exclusive. Otherwise you'd be saying you can't have morality without religion...whiiiich I'm fairly sure is not your stance.

You're right. Corrected.

BrittanySligar
02-07-2012, 11:35 AM
Unfortunately you can`t be elected as US president if you claim you`re agnostic or atheist. I believe even Gingrich emphasized this at some debate, saying he won`t vote for an atheist.

So basically for any president to be elected they have to claim they believe in God which is pretty sad.

I don`t believe Ron Paul`s stance on most issues would have been different had he not been religious. It`s likely though he wouldn`t have gone through changing his stance on death penalty had he been atheist. He probably would have had an anti-death penalty stance from the beginning. He was initially for death penalty, than changed his mind and went against it.

Sad, but true.

"over 95% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in a personal god. However, in order to be a politician in the United States, you must claim belief in a personal god. Thus, the most brilliant among, those who have achieved the pinnacle of achievement in their fields, those most capable of reason, are inherently barred from the political process. So, in order to enter politics, it is required that you either be a liar, or delusional." -Dawkins, (para)

The overwhelming majority of atheists / agnostics have become democrats, simply because dems are "less" religious - and consequently, the conclusion is made that democrats must be less intellectually clouded / deluded. It's a travesty.

bolil
02-07-2012, 11:38 AM
Look, the issue is not really this particular case, even a hypothetical. The real issue is the precedent state forced "medical" care presents. Are there some people out there who, for whatever reason good or bad, choose not to send their kids to the hospital? Yep. Just like there are some parents who choose not to send their kids to the state run school.

If we take a hypothetical like this, and react in with this "think of the children" nonsense please pause for a minute and actually think of the children. If we allow the state to mandate a child is taken for treatment for cancer, perhaps a good thing; tell me then how, many kids will be ordered to receive mandatory treatment for more benign, even relative, things like ADD or depression?

In the scheme of things, the number of parents that would endanger their child over their religious beliefs is very small; but the number of kids the state would inevitably order to treatment would be invariably large, and most of the cases I guarantee would be things like ADD, depression, ADHD and other psychological issues that our truly relative. Don't leave out flu shots, mandatory vaccinations, and this list could go on and on and on.

"Big Pharma... they care about the kids." gimme a fuckin break

If we are to live in a land ruled by law, then we need to be very careful in the precedents we set. If we are incapable of setting precedents carefully, than Murray Rothbard is completely right in abolishing the state. It is often evil wins us over with trifles of good.

Working Poor
02-07-2012, 11:38 AM
Child endangerment is a floating standard. But there's not really much leeway when a kid is dying from cancer because the parents are refusing treatment.


But it is alright to kill them with chemo right? As long as the FDA approves

dannno
02-07-2012, 11:42 AM
Children have liberties too. Thus, I do believe the government does play a role in helping children receive the health care they deserve. A lot of what these super-religious parents are doing is called child-abuse, and they should be tried for that.

And let's not beat around the bush here. Religious freedom is one thing, magic is another.

There is no such thing as magic which could magically make sickness go away. And if you insist there is, without proof or explanation, then you defy the will of the god who has not intervened in humanity for thousands of years.

If you honestly believe you can pray away the worst of illnesses, you are a horrible parent who places your selfish own fantasy world above that of your own child.

Like I said: The child has liberties too. Just like it's wrong to abort a fetus, isn't it wrong to kill a child because one would rather believe that which is both scientifically, and religiously impossible?

What happened in your life to get you to the point where you trust politicians who are owned by big pharma enough to make everybody's health care decisions?!

Imagine there IS a cure for cancer that is found in nature and everybody could be cured of cancer, except that big pharma wants to make money so they use the medical establishment to push a treatment that costs nearly a half million dollars instead of a cure that costs $10? What if I told you that was happening today, and because people support politicians and the laws they make with regard to health care, there are now a few people who are very wealthy and millions of people who are significantly poorer because they or a relative had these expensive cancer treatments?

If you just follow the simple rule that government shouldn't be running our lives, then individuals can decide what the best decision is rather than corrupt men in D.C. Some people will make mistakes, but they will be small, whereas the government through force can make absolutely HUGE mistakes for almost everybody.

jkr
02-07-2012, 11:43 AM
BUTITSFORTHECHILDRENSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!111111!!1 1111!11!!!

dannno
02-07-2012, 11:54 AM
ok

but what about children? they have no way of protecting themselves against ignorant parents.

What if the state is ignorant, or worse, what if they are corrupt? Don't you know how big pharma operates? They buy off politicians. If we can force expensive medical treatments on people, then big pharma will send more lobbyists to D.C. to make sure that THEIR treatment is forced on everybody they can.

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 12:12 PM
It's called 'due process'. Children aren't the only victims in society. If a crime is committed, we have mechanisms in place to deal with it. The presumption of innocence is the keystone of our criminal justice system. Take seat belt laws....sounds like a great idea, right? But by advocating those laws, you are advocating having an officer peer into your vehicle to enforce those laws. We have become a nation of sheep looking to the 'government' for direction.

so, if a child is diagnosed with cancer and the parents decline medical treatment, is that a crime?

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 12:15 PM
Look, the issue is not really this particular case, even a hypothetical. The real issue is the precedent state forced "medical" care presents. Are there some people out there who, for whatever reason good or bad, choose not to send their kids to the hospital? Yep. Just like there are some parents who choose not to send their kids to the state run school.

If we take a hypothetical like this, and react in with this "think of the children" nonsense please pause for a minute and actually think of the children. If we allow the state to mandate a child is taken for treatment for cancer, perhaps a good thing; tell me then how, many kids will be ordered to receive mandatory treatment for more benign, even relative, things like ADD or depression?

In the scheme of things, the number of parents that would endanger their child over their religious beliefs is very small; but the number of kids the state would inevitably order to treatment would be invariably large, and most of the cases I guarantee would be things like ADD, depression, ADHD and other psychological issues that our truly relative. Don't leave out flu shots, mandatory vaccinations, and this list could go on and on and on.

"Big Pharma... they care about the kids." gimme a fuckin break

If we are to live in a land ruled by law, then we need to be very careful in the precedents we set. If we are incapable of setting precedents carefully, than Murray Rothbard is completely right in abolishing the state. It is often evil wins us over with trifles of good.

The point is not about all medical issues. it's only about a diagnosis that ultimately could be a death sentence for the child.

Jingles
02-07-2012, 12:18 PM
>I was watching an episode of Family Guy

There's your problem! :D

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 12:19 PM
What if the state is ignorant, or worse, what if they are corrupt? Don't you know how big pharma operates? They buy off politicians. If we can force expensive medical treatments on people, then big pharma will send more lobbyists to D.C. to make sure that THEIR treatment is forced on everybody they can.

If we win, and our society actually changes this will no longer be the case. The age of corporatism will be over.

If we are talking about a medical system based on free market principals, shouldn't the parents have a legal obligation to at least try to gain access to serious treatment for a serious disease?

bolil
02-07-2012, 12:27 PM
Sure it is, for now. But that sets a precedent that the state has the right to "protect" the child from death. Well, what about depression that too can lead to death. ADD can lead to depression. Any number of psychological issues can lead to depression, so lets keep those prescriptions flowin! Shit, the flu can kill, so lets mandate everyone get a flu shot. Since we are talking about the good of the children, it is a well known fact that obesity can lead to death, the cause of obesity is ignorant parents... and since we can't tell which ones are going to be ignorant before hand it seems the only avenue we have to protect the children is to force all parents to bring their kids in for monthly physicals, on their own dime of course. Parents who don't comply, we will just take there kids and put them in foster homes where they are SURE to be treated with more consideration and love. Right? That's the unsaid implications in what you just said. And quite frankly I am disgusted you care so little for children in the name of a child.

You like looking at the narrow issue, I can't help but see ramifications. Hey, the bailout kept food on alot of kids tables. Invading Iraq may have killed thousands of children, but the next generation will have it SOOOOO much better.

bolil
02-07-2012, 12:28 PM
Who would obligate them? Maybe you?

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 12:37 PM
I see what you are saying. It is a slippery slope.

I just want to believe that if a child is literally dying of cancer and not being treated we would want to do something. It is really hard to say that we should just let the parents get away with allowing their child to die when they could have possibly prevented the death.

Revolution9
02-07-2012, 12:43 PM
Children have liberties too. Thus, I do believe the government does play a role in helping children receive the health care they deserve. A lot of what these super-religious parents are doing is called child-abuse, and they should be tried for that.

And if they just happen to be aware that chemo is massive poisoning and kills much more than cancer cells this hobgoblin will be rolled out as the reason. I would not be surprised if that was the decision in this case but the will of the parents are being undermined by the AMA and big pharma. Peoples faith in modern western medicine is astounding. I believe I read stats that chemo patients had higher mortality rates than non-chemo cancer patients, who often go into remission with not much more than a lifestyle change of habits.

Rev9

otherone
02-07-2012, 12:51 PM
so, if a child is diagnosed with cancer and the parents decline medical treatment, is that a crime?

Only if proven malicious.
If you refuse to get your child a flu shot, and the child dies, is that a crime? If you can't afford to pay for our over-bloated healthcare, and the child dies, is that a crime? If your child dies of pneumonia, because you forgot to make him wear his scarf, is that a crime? If you get a second opinion, and the second opinion MD doesn't recommend chemo, and the child dies, is that a crime? Allowing the State to 'use their discretion' creates an out of control state.

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 12:52 PM
I believe I read stats that chemo patients had higher mortality rates than non-chemo cancer patients, who often go into remission with not much more than a lifestyle change of habits.

Rev9

Do you remember where you read that?

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 12:55 PM
Only if proven malicious.


You may be right.

It may not be a crime. However, does a terminal diagnosis give the state the authority to intervene, even though no malice was intended?

otherone
02-07-2012, 12:56 PM
Children have liberties too. Thus, I do believe the government does play a role in helping children receive the health care they deserve.

I can't let this statement go. The very definition of "Liberty" is what's left over after government is given powers. What you mean to say is 'children have RIGHTS'. And can you explain your 'healthcare they deserve' comment?

otherone
02-07-2012, 12:59 PM
You may be right.

It may not be a crime. However, does a terminal diagnosis give the state the authority to intervene, even though no malice was intended?


Malice is proven after the fact. Remember the presumption of innocence? Should the ATF take your gun away because you might use it?

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 01:01 PM
“...when a child’s life or health is endangered by his or her parents’ decisions regarding the child’s medical care, the state may, in some circumstances, temporarily intervene without violating the parents’ constitutional rights,” Justice Jill Parrish wrote in a unanimous decision.
h XX p://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/printerfriendly.csp?id=51525460


Christian Scientist parents rejected surgery for their son, suffering from a bowel condition, in favor of spiritual treatment. In that situation, Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court ruled that parents, despite their religious beliefs, are obligated to rely on conventional medicine to treat their critically ill children.

h XX p://healthland.time.com/2011/04/14/is-it-murder-if-a-parent-withholds-cancer-treatment-from-her-child/#ixzz1lixkoqDA

Lishy
02-07-2012, 01:05 PM
What happened in your life to get you to the point where you trust politicians who are owned by big pharma enough to make everybody's health care decisions?!

Imagine there IS a cure for cancer that is found in nature and everybody could be cured of cancer, except that big pharma wants to make money so they use the medical establishment to push a treatment that costs nearly a half million dollars instead of a cure that costs $10? What if I told you that was happening today, and because people support politicians and the laws they make with regard to health care, there are now a few people who are very wealthy and millions of people who are significantly poorer because they or a relative had these expensive cancer treatments?

If you just follow the simple rule that government shouldn't be running our lives, then individuals can decide what the best decision is rather than corrupt men in D.C. Some people will make mistakes, but they will be small, whereas the government through force can make absolutely HUGE mistakes for almost everybody.

Never said anything about trusting their cures for cancer, but more-so in the general scope of things for illness. If you try to pray away something which DOES have a cure, you are neglecting your child. Money is one issue, but making no effort whatsoever for at least alternative cures is another issue. It's a parent's responsibility to research.

I hear magic mushrooms can cure cluster headaches.

Also, which 10 buck cancer treatment are you referring to?

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 01:08 PM
Justice Rutledge writing the majority opinion in Prince v. Massachusetts:


Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_v._Massachusetts


Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.

ConCap
02-07-2012, 01:13 PM
So a parent has the right to endanger their own child? Bullcrap. Children are human too. They have natural rights. Letting a parent use them as a guinea pig is just ignoring their right to liberty.

Are you saying, if the Government finds it necessary, they have the right to take that child away or intervene it the Childs behalf, despite the wishes of the parent?

dannno
02-07-2012, 01:17 PM
Wasn't saying that. I think I actually specifically said that atheists can come to the liberty message.

Of course they can, the numbers show that.

The question is by what mechanism does religion deter people from liberty since obviously religious people vote overwhelmingly against it?

Is religion truly benefiting our liberty when we see those who are without religion are the ones begging for liberty the most?

I think liberty is a huge cornerstone of Christianity in a philosophical sense, I just don't know how to explain that to hundreds of millions of Christians in this country who are brainwashed toward statism because they think the government should force people to act like they are told to act on Sunday by their Minister.

ConCap
02-07-2012, 01:20 PM
Children have liberties too. Thus, I do believe the government does play a role in helping children receive the health care they deserve.

Are you saying, if the Government finds it necessary, they have the right to take that child away or intervene on the Childs behalf, despite the wishes of the parent?

Even if it is your child?

Lishy
02-07-2012, 01:22 PM
Are you saying, if the Government finds it necessary, they have the right to take that child away or intervene it the Childs behalf, despite the wishes of the parent?

Even if it is your child?

I didn't propose any solutions. I said children have liberties we need to protect too. Obviously it's a very sensitive issue.

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 01:24 PM
Again, according to the USSC the govt does have the authority to intervene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_v._Massachusetts

I agree with this:

Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.

dannno
02-07-2012, 01:41 PM
If we win, and our society actually changes this will no longer be the case. The age of corporatism will be over.

If we are talking about a medical system based on free market principals, shouldn't the parents have a legal obligation to at least try to gain access to serious treatment for a serious disease?

We win when we gain freedom.. If we allow govt. to control our lives, then we lose, because corporatism WILL creep in. If we have freedom then corporatism can't creep in because there is no mechanism by which they can control our decisions.

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 01:44 PM
We win when we gain freedom.. If we allow govt. to control our lives, then we lose, because corporatism WILL creep in. If we have freedom then corporatism can't creep in because there is no mechanism by which they can control our decisions.

Are you saying parents have the right to decide for a child whether or not that child gets a potentially life-saving treatment?

bolil
02-07-2012, 01:47 PM
potentially being an operative term there. What IM saying is that setting a precedent like that, even if it is for a good cause, will invariable be turned into things it was not intended to be. ALA what I said earlier.

So let me ask you this Steveo, what if the parents are financially incapable of providing the treatment? Should the state make the call for treatment and then provide the funds for it? Does that seem like a good idea to you?

dannno
02-07-2012, 01:49 PM
Also, which 10 buck cancer treatment are you referring to?

Unfiltered apple cider vinegar (mostly preventative but should be used during treatment) and B-17 (mostly preventative and should be used in the very early stages for best results, but also can be used as treatment)

There are quite a few more natural treatments that can be utilized. Personally, I would also recommend leaning as much toward an organic raw vegan diet as possible. I mean, I'm mostly veggie and advocate and eat plenty of dairy (raw milk or yogurt or cheese) but if you're actually battling cancer you really don't want a lot of protein because your body's natural defense against cancer utilizes an enzyme that is also used to digest protein.. so eating a lot of protein means those enzymes are used digesting food when they could be battling cancer. That is why doctors, unknowingly, advocate more fruits and veggies to cancer patients.

The great thing about natural treatments is that they are compatible with each other. If you do chemo and use some alternative treatments, the chemo significantly reduces the efficacy of some natural treatments because it lowers your body's natural ability to fight the cancer.

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 01:55 PM
potentially being an operative term there. What IM saying is that setting a precedent like that, even if it is for a good cause, will invariable be turned into things it was not intended to be. ALA what I said earlier.

So let me ask you this Steveo, what if the parents are financially incapable of providing the treatment? Should the state make the call for treatment and then provide the funds for it? Does that seem like a good idea to you?

Well, 1st of all, I believe the precedent was set in 1944 by USSC prince v mass.

What do poor parents do when they actually want to get treatment for their sick kids? Are poor kids dying from cancer because they can't get any treatment?

noneedtoaggress
02-07-2012, 01:56 PM
Unfiltered apple cider vinegar (mostly preventative but should be used during treatment) and B-17 (mostly preventative and should be used in the very early stages for best results, but also can be used as treatment)

There are quite a few more natural treatments that can be utilized. Personally, I would also recommend leaning as much toward an organic raw vegan diet as possible. I mean, I'm mostly veggie and advocate and eat plenty of dairy but if you're actually battling cancer you really don't want a lot of protein because your body's natural defense against cancer utilizes an enzyme that is also used to digest protein.. so eating a lot of protein means those enzymes are used digesting food when they could be battling cancer. That is why doctors, unknowingly, advocate more fruits and veggies to cancer patients.

The great thing about natural treatments is that they are compatible with each other. If you do chemo and use some alternative treatments, the chemo significantly reduces the efficacy of some natural treatments because it lowers your body's natural ability to fight the cancer.

No chemo?? Fruits and veggies are worthless as prayer! You should rot in a prison cell.

dannno
02-07-2012, 01:59 PM
Are you saying parents have the right to decide for a child whether or not that child gets a potentially life-saving treatment?

No, I believe the child has the right to run away to a close relative or friend and seek treatments if they want to and the state shouldn't force the child to go back and live with their parents, and the child is not the parent's property.

What I don't want to do is have a monopoly force making medical decisions that cost a lot of money because that inevitably leads to corruption.

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 02:03 PM
What I don't want to do is have a monopoly force making medical decisions that cost a lot of money because that inevitably leads to corruption.

Sure, and I agree with that. However, in rare cases where a parent is attempting to make a political statement or is attempting to adhere to some strict religious belief that results in the parent denying proper care to a terminally ill child it is not unconstitutional for the govt to intervene.

dannno
02-07-2012, 02:03 PM
No chemo?? Fruits and veggies are worthless as prayer! You should rot in a prison cell.

How about you not force your treatments on me? We'll see who gets cancer and dies first.


http://www.cancer.org/Healthy/EatHealthyGetActive/EatHealthy/fruits-and-vegetables-do-you-get-enough

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/07/us-cancer-food-idUSN0732405020071207

http://www.webmd.com/colorectal-cancer/news/20110926/variety-fruits-veggies-best-colon-cancer

dannno
02-07-2012, 02:07 PM
Sure, and I agree with that. However, in rare cases where a parent is attempting to make a political statement or is attempting to adhere to some strict religious belief that results in the parent denying proper care to a terminally ill child it is not unconstitutional for the govt to intervene.

Most of this political/religious statement stuff is contrived by the media. They blow it up because it sells newspapers. It also degrades the values our country holds with regard to our liberty.

People die of diseases every day. What if those same Christian prayer people have a higher rate of survival and higher life expectancy than the general population? Should we still punish them for their beliefs even though they are doing better than average healthwise?

The fact is that government shouldn't have ANY involvement in healthcare.

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 02:11 PM
What if those same Christian prayer people have a higher rate of survival and higher life expectancy than the general population?



Then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

bolil
02-07-2012, 02:12 PM
Well, 1st of all, I believe the precedent was set in 1944 by USSC prince v mass.

What do poor parents do when they actually want to get treatment for their sick kids? Are poor kids dying from cancer because they can't get any treatment?

well then you should also know, much like hypotheses that become theories, precedents remain relevant only as long as they are retested with similar results.

Ive played your game, answered your questions, now its your turn to answer mine

Right now, because the state has access to the power you deem necessary for it, not a lot and health care is expensive as hell. Yeah, there are, again because there healthcare in this country is artificially expensive as hell. That usually happens when powerful monopolies operate in a theatre where interests converge. Gov + Pharma + Unions = Expensive health care. Your solution is mandating people (yeah children are people too) go in for healthcare, effectively putting more money into the monopoly that doesn't really give a fuck about curing or helping anyone anyways.

So wheres the cut off campy? Cancer? Depression? Obesity? all lead to death. where does the state lose authority to mandate treatment? No more questions from you, your not Socrates dude.

onlyrp
02-07-2012, 02:14 PM
It is the responsibility of the state to prosecute offenders. Giving the state powers of 'protection' has opened the doors to all manner of tyrannical mischief.

you're a "punish after done" kinda person, that's good. Prevention is for tyrants.

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 02:17 PM
well then you should also know, much like hypotheses that become theories, precedents remain relevant only as long as they are retested with similar results.

Ive played your game, answered your questions, now its your turn to answer mine

Right now, because the state has access to the power you deem necessary for it, not a lot and health care is expensive as hell. Yeah, there are, again because there healthcare in this country is artificially expensive as hell. That usually happens when powerful monopolies operate in a theatre where interests converge. Gov + Pharma + Unions = Expensive health care. Your solution is mandating people (yeah children are people too) go in for healthcare, effectively putting more money into the monopoly that doesn't really give a fuck about curing or helping anyone anyways.

So wheres the cut off campy? Cancer? Depression? Obesity? all lead to death. where does the state lose authority to mandate treatment? No more questions from you, your not Socrates dude.

I'm not playing a game. I am discussing politics and liberty.

I am in favor of protecting those who can't protect themselves. I see this as the same as abortion. There is no difference between a child in the womb and a child that is 5 years old. They both have the right to life. A parent's authority does not include the power to deny the child access to care.

onlyrp
02-07-2012, 02:18 PM
In cases where the parents violate the child's rights, obviously it's a crime as much as any other crime. It shouldn't be handled by the state, though, which is inefficient and violent in everything it does. The state is just as liable to snatch children from decent families as it is leave children with abusive ones. Voluntary child protection organizations could exist to investigate these matters and bring it to voluntary courts if they feel a child is the victim of aggression. In the furthest extreme, they might try to take the child by force. However, they would then have to prove that the child was actually being abused or otherwise they themselves would be guilty of child abduction.

Voluntary child protection? How does that work? Who gives this voluntary organization the right to use force against a parent?
How would a "voluntary court" work? Do you ask the defendant nicely to show up at your court?
Who would they have to prove it to? The parent or the voluntary jury (aka mob)?

dannno
02-07-2012, 02:22 PM
Then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

How do you know they don't?

The media is taking ONE instance of someone from their religion dying and using it to force them to be a certain way because we think they should be healthier.. Yet what if they are healthier than the average person, what right do we have to force our medical establishment on them?

onlyrp
02-07-2012, 02:23 PM
The Catholic Church is a voluntary organization, and there was TONS of abuse there, and not only was there abuse, but the hierarchy covered it up. So the argument that a voluntary organization is necessarily going to be better holds no water.

ANY organization, whether voluntary or state, that is going to investigate crimes and solve problems necessarily has to have the ability to impose against the perpetrator's will, otherwise the perpetrator will continue the crimes.

You are correct, you can't solve violence without violence and authority. Calling it a voluntary organization doesn't automatically give it authority, until the defendant, criminal, perpetrator recognizes it, or is forced to.

camp_steveo
02-07-2012, 02:23 PM
I have made my case. That is all. :D

noneedtoaggress
02-07-2012, 02:40 PM
How about you not force your treatments on me? We'll see who gets cancer and dies first.


http://www.cancer.org/Healthy/EatHealthyGetActive/EatHealthy/fruits-and-vegetables-do-you-get-enough

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/07/us-cancer-food-idUSN0732405020071207

http://www.webmd.com/colorectal-cancer/news/20110926/variety-fruits-veggies-best-colon-cancer

Lol, sorry I should have made it more clear I was being sarcastic. My girlfriend is a cancer survivor and has a degree in biochem (which she doesn't use after becoming disillusioned by the pharma industry). She's talked to me about how old and backwards chemo is.

bolil
02-07-2012, 02:41 PM
I'm not playing a game. I am discussing politics and liberty.

I am in favor of protecting those who can't protect themselves. I see this as the same as abortion. There is no difference between a child in the womb and a child that is 5 years old. They both have the right to life. A parent's authority does not include the power to deny the child access to care.

That's fine, but you have no right to delegate your "favor of protecting those who can't protect themselves" to the state in the form of coercive power. A states authority does not include the power to force care upon the child.

onlyrp
02-07-2012, 02:43 PM
That's fine, but you have no right to delegate your "favor of protecting those who can't protect themselves" to the state in the form of coercive power. A states authority does not include the power to force care upon the child.

do you recognize there is even such a right to "protect those who cannot themselves"?

bolil
02-07-2012, 02:52 PM
Not a right, but an exercising of liberty, so I recognize there is a choice that can be made, "to protect those who cannot protect themselves". If I see an old lady getting beat down by a bunch of thugs I can choose to step in, is that an inalienable right? No because I can also choose not to. Will I be prosecuted for stepping in, no. Wouldn't reflect well on my character, not stepping in, but the choice is there and I certainly should not be made a criminal by choosing not to assist granny. I think we've gone down this path onlyrp.

I guess it comes down to evaluation of evil. To me the greater evil lies in state coercion (slippery slope indeed), to camp_steveo the greater evil lies in parenting decisions regarding sick kids (a localized evil, unlikely to affect as many kids negatively as state coercion would).

Why? Because if this becomes an accepted right, or what you will, then what of parents whos kid commits suicide? Should they be litigated against because they didn't get the kid help?

ConCap
02-07-2012, 04:04 PM
I didn't propose any solutions. I said children have liberties we need to protect too. Obviously it's a very sensitive issue.

The point is.
It’s OK for you to propose all the solutions you feel that are necessary.
Some children do need protected and are counting on people like you to do so.
Just do not advocate them on a Federal Level.

tttppp
02-07-2012, 05:35 PM
Ill tell you this......i know chemo and various madern medicine has helped people and cured some of cancer......i recently watched my dad die of cancer and go through 9 rounds of chemo.....no1 will EVER tell me that chemo helps people.....even when u win....you lose

There is no real cure for cancer from modern medicine. Chemo is basically poison for you body. It can be effective in cancer treatment only because it usually kills the cancer before it kills the rest of your body. A real cure for cancer or anything else would be something that makes your body healthier not something that kills your body. I would suggest chinese traditional medicine (acupuncture and herbs) for most illnesses. It can cure most illness as long as you don't wait until the last minute.

GunnyFreedom
02-07-2012, 05:52 PM
Of course they can, the numbers show that.

The question is by what mechanism does religion deter people from liberty since obviously religious people vote overwhelmingly against it?

Is religion truly benefiting our liberty when we see those who are without religion are the ones begging for liberty the most?

I think liberty is a huge cornerstone of Christianity in a philosophical sense, I just don't know how to explain that to hundreds of millions of Christians in this country who are brainwashed toward statism because they think the government should force people to act like they are told to act on Sunday by their Minister.

I'm pretty sure it's an extension of the error of the Pharisees. It it important to remember (because Christians often forget) that the Pharisees were doing it wrong even "under the law" paradigm (which I also think is misunderstood by Christians).

Neither Jehova nor Jesus approved of Phariseeism. Not only is liberty a cornerstone of Christianity, but on the flip-side Phariseeism has been an indication false-spirituality from the creation on to this very day.

The church in America has replaced God with government. 2000 years ago it was Herod, Pilate, and Caesar. Today it is the Pastor, the Governor, and the President.

The point I am getting to is the "why," in the way of explaining why millions of Christians act like petty tyrants. The spirit of the Pharisees has been among the people of God from the beginning, and it remains among us today. As to how to reach them? I think the bad news is that Jesus Himself was only able to reach....what...two? if memory serves. Three if you count Paul. Out of...hundreds?

So something like 1% of Pharisees are reachable with Truth. The fortunate part is most parishioners are not Pharisaic, just blinded by them. If somebody has a specific calling to reach out to the American church (as distinct from the Living Church) the best thing is to intensely study how Jesus did battle with the Scribes and Pharisees and emulate Him.

You won't turn the people you are arguing with, but they are not the target anyway, the poor blinded souls around them are. People who stand up to the 21st Century Pharisees and yet carry with themselves the Spirit of God will enlighten the lost and blinded. I have already seen it.

We don't need the 5% at the top of the apostate church. Added together they are only some 1-2% of the vote. But by doing righteous battle with that 5%, then some half of the 95% around them may wake up.

It's the WWJD angle. Since the question was "I don't know how to explain..." we have the WWJD model. If we are called to that particular battlefield, we need to make an intense study of the 'war' between Yeshua and the scribes and the Pharisees, and follow Him as a battlefield General.

That's how I see it anyway.

GunnyFreedom
02-07-2012, 05:56 PM
Wasn't saying that. I think I actually specifically said that atheists can come to the liberty message.

Yeah, it's like the traveller that was set upon by thieves and fell by the wayside. All manner of Israelites and Priests and religious passed him by or crossed the street to avoid the wounded traveller, but a Samaritan stopped to help and minister to the traveller.

Replace the Israelites with "Christians" and the Priests with "Pastors" and the Samaritan with "an Atheist" and the same question applies -- who is the neighbor? I've been saying there are a significant number of atheists who are more Christ-like than a lot of nominal Christians.

Just like the parable of the Good Samaritan.

GunnyFreedom
02-07-2012, 06:06 PM
I wonder....

If you as a parent are treating your child's flu with bedrest, chicken soup, and orange juice...does the government have the right to step in, seize your child, lock him away and cover his body with leeches?

ConCap
02-07-2012, 06:21 PM
I wonder....
...does the government have the right to step in, seize your child, lock him away and cover his body with leeches?

What if someone said yes, and based the governments right to do so, on the same right they have to stop or let, someone have an abortion?

lilymc
02-07-2012, 06:23 PM
The point I am getting to is the "why," in the way of explaining why millions of Christians act like petty tyrants. The spirit of the Pharisees has been among the people of God from the beginning, and it remains among us today. As to how to reach them? I think the bad news is that Jesus Himself was only able to reach....what...two? if memory serves. Three if you count Paul. Out of...hundreds?

So something like 1% of Pharisees are reachable with Truth. The fortunate part is most parishioners are not Pharisaic, just blinded by them. If somebody has a specific calling to reach out to the American church (as distinct from the Living Church) the best thing is to intensely study how Jesus did battle with the Scribes and Pharisees and emulate Him.

You won't turn the people you are arguing with, but they are not the target anyway, the poor blinded souls around them are. People who stand up to the 21st Century Pharisees and yet carry with themselves the Spirit of God will enlighten the lost and blinded. I have already seen it.

We don't need the 5% at the top of the apostate church. Added together they are only some 1-2% of the vote. But by doing righteous battle with that 5%, then some half of the 95% around them may wake up.

It's the WWJD angle. Since the question was "I don't know how to explain..." we have the WWJD model. If we are called to that particular battlefield, we need to make an intense study of the 'war' between Yeshua and the scribes and the Pharisees, and follow Him as a battlefield General.

That's how I see it anyway.

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here. As you might remember from an earlier thread, my views have been changing since last year towards libertarianism, even though (like Ron Paul) my personal views on many issues are still conservative.

But I just wanted to say that I STILL have a hard time explaining to certain Christians that libertarianism is in line with Christianity, and it's not "unChristian" to have Ron Paul's stance on social issues, as opposed to someone like Santorum.

The other day I talked to a Christian friend who isn't that into politics, and when I told her that my views have been changing lately, towards libertarianism, she kinda looked at me like I said I had become a liberal democrat or something. :D I tried to say that God gives us all free will, and that doesn't mean that God supports what everyone uses their freedom for. But I couldn't explain it in the right way, and I don't think I got through to her.

I need to work on that, because that is where we lose a lot of Christian potential RP supporters... many of them can't see how supporting things like drug legalization or legal prostitution can be good for society, from a Christian perspective.

otherone
02-07-2012, 06:32 PM
I wonder....

If you as a parent are treating your child's flu with bedrest, chicken soup, and orange juice...does the government have the right to step in, seize your child, lock him away and cover his body with leeches?

What people, in their altruistic fervor, fail to grasp is that 'save the children' platitudes would need to backed by practical applications. For instance, to ensure that children are receiving adequate follow-up care, government would have to review medical records for compliance. I suppose there are some who believe big government is fine as long as their own fears are being abated. Plenty of precious snowflakes are airline passengers....to protect against terrorism, every passenger should be cavity searched...better safe than sorry? Think about the children, right?

ConCap
02-07-2012, 06:33 PM
I hope you don't mind me jumping in here. As you might remember from an earlier thread, my views have been changing since last year towards libertarianism, even though (like Ron Paul) my personal views on many issues are still conservative.

But I just wanted to say that I STILL have a hard time explaining to certain Christians that libertarianism is in line with Christianity, and it's not "unChristian" to have Ron Paul's stance on social issues, as opposed to someone like Santorum.

The other day I talked to a Christian friend who isn't that into politics, and when I told her that my views have been changing lately, towards libertarianism, she kinda looked at me like I said I had become a liberal democrat or something. :D I tried to say that God gives us all free will, and that doesn't mean that God supports what everyone uses their freedom for. But I couldn't explain it in the right way, and I don't think I got through to her.

I need to work on that, because that is where we lose a lot of Christian potential RP supporters... many of them can't see how supporting things like drug legalization or legal prostitution can be good for society, from a Christian perspective.

Objectivism>>>Individualism>>>Constitutionalism>>>Capitalism>>>Freedom

Every normal person needs to base there politics on a philosophy.
All Christians follow the Bible, but none verbatim.
It’s OK not to follow Objectivism verbatim.

Let’s say the path to total Objectivism ends at the shore line of the west coast.
200 people can tell you 200 different ways to get there.
I’m just saying “Go West”.
If you get there, you get there, and what you pick up on the way is what you get out of it.
Just “Go West”

PaulConventionWV
02-07-2012, 07:13 PM
Government wants a uniform population across the board and that`s best achieved through intrusion. The Nazis for example put all Jehova`s witnesses in concentration camps for refusing to join the army.

Yes, there are many cases when abuses happen in families. Father raping their kids, bloody beatings and so on. There are also religious issues such as accepting blood transfusions for example. Jehova`s witnesses oppose it and that basically causes deaths. So there are different many kind of abuses going on one could argue.

Best solutions are to be found at local level where community reaches a consensus on how to deal with these issues. We may or may not agree how that community solves those issue but having state imposing 1 size fits all solution on everybody is not the answer. There are tribes in Papua new guinea and Indonesia that practice cannibalism to this day or burn people at stake, there also are amazon tribes that bury their kids alive in rituals. They should be left to evolve with their own devices. Interference causes more harm than good in the long run, because it creates an uneven, unbalanced society.

On a different side note; a previous poster said he doesn`t trust modern medicine because of some medication having side effects. I find this statement a bit obtuse.
Even good food has side effects. Everything has side effects. Every decision we make has side effects. Every decision brings with it a level of sacrifice, because you sacrifice one thing to gain another. For example, people who are big savers know this better, because you do make sacrifices when saving money such as depriving yourself of certain items perhaps, but you know it will do more good than harm in the long run. There is a very interesting German saying "Wer die Wahl hat, hat die Qual" which roughly translates into "He who has to choose has to go through pain."
Let`s take the example of blood transfusion which Jehova`s reject. I may dislike blood transfusion from some obese individual who`s blood is full of cholesterol or risk getting some blood disease, but when I weigh that against dying, choice is pretty obvious.

You're the one being obtuse. Those things that sometimes come with the medicines aren't "side effects." They're effects. Also, I don't see how good food has side effects other than good ones. At least none of them can cause blindness, paralysis, or death. These "medicines" do nothing good for you except take away your symptoms and leave the problems. Maybe that's useful, but it's not the only answer and by far not the best answer to the problem. Real medicine doesn't require sacrifice. That's absurd. Food doesn't require sacrifice. All you're sacrificing is the money to aquire these things.

Some people on here seem to not realize the connection between medicine and the state. The state controls everything these days. What makes you think it would ignore medicine when there's so much to control? And it obviously is controlled. Thse people will rail against state-run education and then turn around and profess their faith in the medical community because they're supposed to be scientists. Never mind that they receive government sbusidies and are obviously a state run institution. The reason pharmaceuticals are so widely used is that they help people feel better by eliminating symptoms without touching the problem, and because no other type of medicine can compete with the state subsidized medicine. We are not in a free market here.

If you say you have to make sacrifices for better health, you don't know what you're talking about. There are better ways to treat cancer or even just the common cold that don't require you to sacrifice any of your health in order to gain it. The very idea is absurd in its nature.

tttppp
02-07-2012, 07:32 PM
You're the one being obtuse. Those things that sometimes come with the medicines aren't "side effects." They're effects. Also, I don't see how good food has side effects other than good ones. At least none of them can cause blindness, paralysis, or death. These "medicines" do nothing good for you except take away your symptoms and leave the problems. Maybe that's useful, but it's not the only answer and by far not the best answer to the problem. Real medicine doesn't require sacrifice. That's absurd. Food doesn't require sacrifice. All you're sacrificing is the money to aquire these things.

I agree there is nothing useful with modern medicine. As you said it may take away some symptoms but does not fix the problems. Not to mention the medication causes problems which requires additional medicine.

There are no side effects to good food. There are side effects to bad food. That is a fact. Also, there are no side effects to herbs unless you take the wrong ones for your condition. So the notion that everything causes side effects is ridiculous.

GunnyFreedom
02-07-2012, 07:40 PM
I hope you don't mind me jumping in here. As you might remember from an earlier thread, my views have been changing since last year towards libertarianism, even though (like Ron Paul) my personal views on many issues are still conservative.

But I just wanted to say that I STILL have a hard time explaining to certain Christians that libertarianism is in line with Christianity, and it's not "unChristian" to have Ron Paul's stance on social issues, as opposed to someone like Santorum.

The other day I talked to a Christian friend who isn't that into politics, and when I told her that my views have been changing lately, towards libertarianism, she kinda looked at me like I said I had become a liberal democrat or something. :D I tried to say that God gives us all free will, and that doesn't mean that God supports what everyone uses their freedom for. But I couldn't explain it in the right way, and I don't think I got through to her.

I need to work on that, because that is where we lose a lot of Christian potential RP supporters... many of them can't see how supporting things like drug legalization or legal prostitution can be good for society, from a Christian perspective.

I think the problem here, is that it's Santorum's philosophy that is really "unchristian" and Paul's philosophy that IS "Christian."

Take for example prostitution. We've evolved somewhat since 30AD and become a little more compassionate. We no longer stone them to death we just lock them away in prison.

But What Would Jesus Do? I think we know, we have a pretty good example in Mary Magdalene.

Just because something is morally wrong does not mean that you use the civil authorities to enforce good behavior. Salvation is between the individual and God through Jesus Christ.

Now here we encounter a real problem. Sometimes the fight to awaken these 21st Century Pharisees is blatantly unwinnable, because the separation has been caused by the power of God. God intentionally sends a strong delusion to certain people because they have no love of truth. Without a love of truth they are not worthy of eternity, and therefore the delusion is sent to separate them (like the goats and the sheep, the wheat and the tares) and provide cause for the separation and ultimate condemnation.

So the first thing to decide is whether the person has a love of truth or not, and if not then the logical conclusion is that they are under the strong delusion and therefore unreachable NO MATTER WHAT we do or say. A lost cause.

But not all of those who have been deceived by the Pharisees have no love of truth. SOme of them are just lost and confused. Those are still reachable, if they love truth such that they prefer a painful truth over a comfortable lie.

For that last group, I have had the most success at 'getting my foot in the door' by using the practicality argument. If we pass laws that make everyone behave like Christians, then people will act like Christians not because they know Christ but because they want to stay out of prison. They will hide their sinful nature from any view. Therefore we, as the ministers of the Gospel, have no way of knowing who needs ministering to, and who needs to hear the Gospel. In essence, we are condemning their souls to hell simply to make our selves more comfortable in this lost and dying world. It's selfish and unchristlike to do that, to sacrifice souls to condemnation just to make our brief stay in this world more comfortable.

Once your foot is in the door, that's when you can start hitting doctrine.

But just understand, the majority of nominal Christians you approach prefer a comfortable lie over a hard truth, and therefore no argument in the universe will work to open the doors. They have been given a strong delusion, quite intentionally, by God "so that they would be condemned who have no love of truth."

I firmly believe that we are approaching the end of days, and in this dark hour the most important discernment between people is whether someone would rather embrace a hard truth or an easy lie. I think that also explains why Ron Paul Christians are disproportionately more Christ-like than Christians who hate Ron Paul. Reason being that Paul is a good example of embracing a hard truth over a comfortable lie.

PaulConventionWV
02-07-2012, 07:46 PM
When one person harms another it is the responsibility of the state to protect. That is not anti-liberty.

I think what you meant was that, when one person violates another's liberties, it is the responsibility of the state to deliver justice. Harm is not something the government can protect against. When you say vague things like this, it completely justifies Obama's policies, or any other socialistic policies, for that matter.

PaulConventionWV
02-07-2012, 07:50 PM
The Catholic Church is a voluntary organization, and there was TONS of abuse there, and not only was there abuse, but the hierarchy covered it up. So the argument that a voluntary organization is necessarily going to be better holds no water.

ANY organization, whether voluntary or state, that is going to investigate crimes and solve problems necessarily has to have the ability to impose against the perpetrator's will, otherwise the perpetrator will continue the crimes.

The Catholic church isn't a very good example. Those people are taught to worship the church, not God. It is much like the state in its hierarchical organization and it is just as corrupt because it has a power elite who can supposedly "protect" the masses by having a special connection with God that they can't have themselves. They even pay tithings to the church as if it were mandatory.

PaulConventionWV
02-07-2012, 07:53 PM
Let natural selection run its course. I mean that in the most altruistic way possible.

On a related note, just think, if we had eliminated religion already, Ron Paul would be president.

Ron got 55% of the atheist vote in NV, and over 50% in IA.

But eliminating religion is also not the answer to the problem and is probably a cure worse than the disease.

Vessol
02-07-2012, 07:53 PM
While I've certainly spoken much about the evil's of child abuse(which in this case, the shows, is child abuse), but from the track record and due to my principles I do not think that going to the government to solve these issues is the solution.

Just look at the horrible foster care system. A child is SIX TIMES MORE LIKELY to be die in foster care than to die in a normal home, even if that's the home of an abuser.

PaulConventionWV
02-07-2012, 07:58 PM
Morality and religion can be mutually exclusive.

The assumption still holds. What makes you think Ron Paul would be the same person without his religion? If we eliminated religion, morality would be an individual choice. That way, there would be no such things as good laws because they are based on an overarching moral principles that applies regardless of one's opinion. You can't have an overarching morality if there is no reason for two people to agree on said moral principles.

Vessol
02-07-2012, 08:04 PM
The assumption still holds. What makes you think Ron Paul would be the same person without his religion? If we eliminated religion, morality would be an individual choice. That way, there would be no such things as good laws because they are based on an overarching moral principles that applies regardless of one's opinion. You can't have an overarching morality if there is no reason for two people to agree on said moral principles.

Unless said moral principles are rational and logical. The problem is that religion bases morals off of either fear or faith, instead of logic. Instead of aiming for others to understand and accept each other based on logic and reasoning, you depend on others to respect each other on the presumption that they were taught the same beliefs at a young age as you were.

We base almost everything in society off of logic now. Try running a hospital, or an airport, or even a store without clear logic and reason. You can't. I don't see why something as important as morality and ethics can somehow not be ruled by logic or reason, especially considering we entrust the entirety of the rest of our life to logic.

If you think morality must be run on faith and faith alone, extend that to the rest of your life. Try running a company on faith. Or try running a train system, or a hospital. That has a name though, it's called government, the ultimate run-by-faith organization.

DamianTV
02-07-2012, 08:05 PM
There are a lot of reasons the Legal System is the polar opposite of Justice. First off, for there to be a Crime, there has to be a Victim. But as we all know damn well, our prisons are overcrowded with people whose "Crime" did not have a Victim. Drugs being probably the #1 cause for a person to be incarcerated. Prisons are run by Private Corporations who get paid by the State for each inmate they can house. Thus, there is incentive for Private Prisons to not change the Status Quo of Victimless Crimes. Those people incarcerated for those Victimless Crimes are the real Victims of the system, which now equates to Human Trafficking and Slavery, for profit.

The responsibility is not of the State to Protect and Prevent the crimes, it is there for everything that happens afterwards. If a person has not yet committed a crime, it is not Justice to arrest or incarcerate them. It is only Justice if there is a Victim and it is after a Crime has taken place. Getting fat. Not a Crime. Smoking a joint. Not a Crime. Killing someone while Driving Drunk IS a Crime. Being Intoxicated does not relieve a person of the responsiblity of their actions. It is not so much the being Drunk part, which everyone is focused on, but by their own actions allowed another person to be injured.

There are two sides to Law. Criminal and Civil. Civil Court is used to settle disputes of wrongdoing or injury when Criminal Law does not apply. I borrow something of value from you and do not return it or compensate you for it. It isnt theft because said object was taken with the permission of the owner. I believe Drunk Driving when someone is injured is much more of a Civil Matter than a Criminal one. And in regards to any person being harmed by another person also falls into the category of Civil not Criminal.

We could continue on this subject all day, but point being that Criminal Law now encompasses many aspects of what should be Civil Law, with the intention of Profit for the State.

PaulConventionWV
02-07-2012, 08:19 PM
Of course they can, the numbers show that.

The question is by what mechanism does religion deter people from liberty since obviously religious people vote overwhelmingly against it?

Is religion truly benefiting our liberty when we see those who are without religion are the ones begging for liberty the most?

I think liberty is a huge cornerstone of Christianity in a philosophical sense, I just don't know how to explain that to hundreds of millions of Christians in this country who are brainwashed toward statism because they think the government should force people to act like they are told to act on Sunday by their Minister.

The brainwashing isn't done by the churches. It is done by the state itself. We are taught that, in order to have a moral society, we must have the government enforcing these supposedly moral rules. It's not the fault of churches that people are brainwashed. It's not the fault of religion. Religious people are not, by default, brainwashed. Many of them, however, take a very valid proposal, overarching moral principles, and take that to mean the government needs to control your life. Religion is not the problem. It is not even a symptom.

PaulConventionWV
02-07-2012, 08:22 PM
Are you saying parents have the right to decide for a child whether or not that child gets a potentially life-saving treatment?

In free market terms, you should define "serious treatment." Which ones does the government have to obligate people to use?

DamianTV
02-07-2012, 08:33 PM
Morality and religion can be mutually exclusive.

There are too many people that do everything they can to hide their own Personal Immorality behind Religion. And just as there are too many that do this, there are too many that believe they are Moral because they are hiding behind Religion. Morality is, has always been, and always will be an Individual Choice.

PaulConventionWV
02-07-2012, 08:59 PM
Unless said moral principles are rational and logical. The problem is that religion bases morals off of either fear or faith, instead of logic. Instead of aiming for others to understand and accept each other based on logic and reasoning, you depend on others to respect each other on the presumption that they were taught the same beliefs at a young age as you were.

We base almost everything in society off of logic now. Try running a hospital, or an airport, or even a store without clear logic and reason. You can't. I don't see why something as important as morality and ethics can somehow not be ruled by logic or reason, especially considering we entrust the entirety of the rest of our life to logic.

If you think morality must be run on faith and faith alone, extend that to the rest of your life. Try running a company on faith. Or try running a train system, or a hospital. That has a name though, it's called government, the ultimate run-by-faith organization.

Moral principles don't have to be rational or logical in order to be morally right. You can't make the two intertwined. What's rational and logical to one person may differ according to how he views the world or what situation he's in. If one person doesn't think it's irrational to kill others, then he doesn't have to follow that principle. If there is a king on a desert island that can get away with anything, then it is completely rational for him to do away with people he doesn't like or with people who might "bring down society." You can't base moral principles on logic and then call them morally right. If you say this and then say the state has the authority to enforce moral principles because they are "logical", then that is a very slippery slope indeed. What else can the state enforce because it is "logical"? Murder isn't wrong because it's irrational. It's not irrational if there are no post-life consequences. If someone thinks it's worth it for them to have a moment's worth of fun killing people even at the expense of their relationships with potential acquantainces or business clients, then who are you to say that they can't do it because it's illogical? First of all, who decides if it's logical? Second of all, who decides it needs to be based on logic in order for it to be morally right? Logical principles cannot define morality.

Also, determining morality is completely different from running a business or a hospital or whatever because it defines what is right, not what is practical.

Also, basing morality on logic also makes the assumption that a human being can always come up with the most logical or rational answer, even when such an answer is unknowable. See, being "logical" in moral situations implies a certain end that is trying to be achieved. What is the rationale for one being moral? Is it for the good of the human race? Is it in the interest of life itself? Is it just so? There is no reason to be logical or rational when it comes to moral decisions because there is no absolute end that one can say is the best end to be achieved. If someone doesn't care about their own life or the human race, then it is completely logical for them to do whatever the hell they want.

PaulConventionWV
02-07-2012, 09:07 PM
There are too many people that do everything they can to hide their own Personal Immorality behind Religion. And just as there are too many that do this, there are too many that believe they are Moral because they are hiding behind Religion. Morality is, has always been, and always will be an Individual Choice.

It's an individual choice whether or not to be moral. Morality itself, however, cannot be an individual choice, or else there is no true morality that is binding on everyone.

dawnbt
02-07-2012, 09:07 PM
Children have liberties too. Thus, I do believe the government does play a role in helping children receive the health care they deserve. A lot of what these super-religious parents are doing is called child-abuse, and they should be tried for that.

And let's not beat around the bush here. Religious freedom is one thing, magic is another.

There is no such thing as magic which could magically make sickness go away. And if you insist there is, without proof or explanation, then you defy the will of the god who has not intervened in humanity for thousands of years.

If you honestly believe you can pray away the worst of illnesses, you are a horrible parent who places your selfish own fantasy world above that of your own child.

Like I said: The child has liberties too. Just like it's wrong to abort a fetus, isn't it wrong to kill a child because one would rather believe that which is both scientifically, and religiously impossible?
I'm "super religious" but not ignorant to reality. We should do all we can do medically for our children while also laying hands and praying for healing. Medicine and doctors did not just happen upon the earth. The Lord provided us with means to care for ourselves and we'd be completely ignorant to is will to think any differently. These are completely misguided, legalistic followers.

ConCap
02-07-2012, 10:18 PM
Moral principles don't have to be rational or logical in order to be morally right. You can't make the two intertwined. What's rational and logical to one person may differ according to how he views the world or what situation he's in. If one person doesn't think it's irrational to kill others, then he doesn't have to follow that principle. If there is a king on a desert island that can get away with anything, then it is completely rational for him to do away with people he doesn't like or with people who might "bring down society." You can't base moral principles on logic and then call them morally right. If you say this and then say the state has the authority to enforce moral principles because they are "logical", then that is a very slippery slope indeed. What else can the state enforce because it is "logical"? Murder isn't wrong because it's irrational. It's not irrational if there are no post-life consequences. If someone thinks it's worth it for them to have a moment's worth of fun killing people even at the expense of their relationships with potential acquantainces or business clients, then who are you to say that they can't do it because it's illogical? First of all, who decides if it's logical? Second of all, who decides it needs to be based on logic in order for it to be morally right? Logical principles cannot define morality.

Also, determining morality is completely different from running a business or a hospital or whatever because it defines what is right, not what is practical.

Also, basing morality on logic also makes the assumption that a human being can always come up with the most logical or rational answer, even when such an answer is unknowable. See, being "logical" in moral situations implies a certain end that is trying to be achieved. What is the rationale for one being moral? Is it for the good of the human race? Is it in the interest of life itself? Is it just so? There is no reason to be logical or rational when it comes to moral decisions because there is no absolute end that one can say is the best end to be achieved. If someone doesn't care about their own life or the human race, then it is completely logical for them to do whatever the hell they want.

Why does everyone leave out the rule of law?

lilymc
02-07-2012, 10:51 PM
I think the problem here, is that it's Santorum's philosophy that is really "unchristian" and Paul's philosophy that IS "Christian."

Take for example prostitution. We've evolved somewhat since 30AD and become a little more compassionate. We no longer stone them to death we just lock them away in prison.

But What Would Jesus Do? I think we know, we have a pretty good example in Mary Magdalene.

Just because something is morally wrong does not mean that you use the civil authorities to enforce good behavior. Salvation is between the individual and God through Jesus Christ.

Now here we encounter a real problem. Sometimes the fight to awaken these 21st Century Pharisees is blatantly unwinnable, because the separation has been caused by the power of God. God intentionally sends a strong delusion to certain people because they have no love of truth. Without a love of truth they are not worthy of eternity, and therefore the delusion is sent to separate them (like the goats and the sheep, the wheat and the tares) and provide cause for the separation and ultimate condemnation.

So the first thing to decide is whether the person has a love of truth or not, and if not then the logical conclusion is that they are under the strong delusion and therefore unreachable NO MATTER WHAT we do or say. A lost cause.

But not all of those who have been deceived by the Pharisees have no love of truth. SOme of them are just lost and confused. Those are still reachable, if they love truth such that they prefer a painful truth over a comfortable lie.

For that last group, I have had the most success at 'getting my foot in the door' by using the practicality argument. If we pass laws that make everyone behave like Christians, then people will act like Christians not because they know Christ but because they want to stay out of prison. They will hide their sinful nature from any view. Therefore we, as the ministers of the Gospel, have no way of knowing who needs ministering to, and who needs to hear the Gospel. In essence, we are condemning their souls to hell simply to make our selves more comfortable in this lost and dying world. It's selfish and unchristlike to do that, to sacrifice souls to condemnation just to make our brief stay in this world more comfortable.

Once your foot is in the door, that's when you can start hitting doctrine.

But just understand, the majority of nominal Christians you approach prefer a comfortable lie over a hard truth, and therefore no argument in the universe will work to open the doors. They have been given a strong delusion, quite intentionally, by God "so that they would be condemned who have no love of truth."

I firmly believe that we are approaching the end of days, and in this dark hour the most important discernment between people is whether someone would rather embrace a hard truth or an easy lie. I think that also explains why Ron Paul Christians are disproportionately more Christ-like than Christians who hate Ron Paul. Reason being that Paul is a good example of embracing a hard truth over a comfortable lie.

Excellent and helpful post, thanks so much! It's sad, what you said about those with no love for truth being under a delusion... I hate to think that they are beyond help, but I agree there are those different groups. Very good point about it being counter-productive to force people to behave like Christians through laws, and I definitely will bring that up to those 'legalistic' types who don't like Paul's libertarian viewpoint. As for the last thing you said, I'm starting to think that too....and I really want to do all I can to help wake up those who ARE reachable. So thank you again for your advice!

PaulConventionWV
02-08-2012, 04:20 AM
Why does everyone leave out the rule of law?

What are you talking about? Do you mean the force of government? I am talking about why moral principles are right, not why laws must be obeyed.

DamianTV
02-08-2012, 04:56 AM
The definitions of "Right" and "Wrong" are very subjectively interpreted. Much of that depends on the Time that they are interpreted. Some acts that we considered to be punishable by death 2000 years ago are now the expected behavior. Other heavily influencing factors are the Society. Things we do here are that are expected are Punishable by Death in China. Things they do in China we'd cry for a death penalty for if someone did them here. As we continue to narrow a divide between people, we see that there remains an ever constant difference. My father raised me in such a way, and I vow to never do that to my kids. Thus, even in ones own family, people can have very different views of "Right" and "Wrong".

These perspectives are the foundation of Moral Principles, and they will be varied from individual to indivdual. Most will be tolerable to a certain degree to others, while some are not. As long as we are not trying to impose either forced actions or ones perspective of those morals unto another, we find that we can easily coexist without a bunch of Laws supposedly based on those more common moral princples. The reason that doing so is a bad thing is because there will always exist people that look to profit and benefit in some way shape or form for any two individuals disagreeing on what the definition of "Right" and "Wrong" is. And once those Laws are in place, it is a son of a bitch to get them repealed, and we ALL suffer as a result.

onlyrp
02-08-2012, 02:38 PM
The definitions of "Right" and "Wrong" are very subjectively interpreted.

+rep