Quote :

"No, "praying instead of taking your dying kids to the hospital" is what's evil. Not "praying"."

so, in other words, not doing what you think they should do is evil. got it. thanks for stopping by.

Quote :

"What I want is a nation of people that can believe whatever the fuck they want but not to the harm of others and especially not their children. "

no, you want a nation that does what you think they should do and believes what you think is right, because you are the almighty disco_stu, and you will use children as an excuse for it. think of the children!!! better ban drugs, cause kids might use em. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

Quote :

"You're just not getting it."

No, YOU are not getting it. Parents have the RIGHT to make medical decisions for their child. You just don't like the decision these people make. Fuck you for pushing your beliefs on them.

Quote :

"It's also evil that they put the idea of hell in their children's head to begin with."

so, in pee drankin's world, parents also shouldn't be able to raise their children in the belief system of their choice, because, well, pee drankin says so! fuck that the Constitution grants us religious liberty, pee drankin is the actual authority on what religious beliefs are OK.

Quote :

"There aren't a ton of Scientologists so we can laugh about how fucking insane Scientology is..but its no crazier than any of the Abrahamic shit."

I pity the folks who were suckered by Scientology, because it is truly a scam. It's so much of a scam, that it's "founder" said it was a scam before he created the scam.

Quote :

"I know, why is birth control a religious topic anyway?"

because there are some people who deem it so. it sucks, and we should allow them to be foolish about it in their own lives and not force them to pay for it if they don't want it. That's the 1st amendment. I don't know why you can't understand a statement as simple as "Congress shall NOT..."

2/29/2012 7:39:04 PM

Quote :

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

How severely can I chasten my son with a rod? Are there any limits?

2/29/2012 9:07:35 PM

^^ so what you're saying is that you are in fact pro-choice?

2/29/2012 10:14:13 PM

Hey aaronburro, here is my full quote.

Quote :

"It's also evil that they put the idea of hell in their children's head to begin with. It's a delusion and its fine, I'll defend your right to have your delusion. "

notice how i said i'll defend your right to have your delusion, meaning they can raise their kids how they want. It's evil, but they can raise their kids in fear if they want to.

In order to defend you position you just decide to be deceitful? Why would you do that? Could you not make your point without lying?

[Edited on February 29, 2012 at 11:11 PM. Reason : ...]

2/29/2012 11:09:21 PM

we should have forced abortions for people who use EBT


oops was that racist? oh well, at least it wasn't anti-abortion.. amirite??

2/29/2012 11:43:29 PM

Quote :

"so, in other words, not doing what you think they should do is evil. got it. thanks for stopping by."

This argument is tired. It's fucking evil not by virtue of me thinking it. It's fucking evil because it causes immense suffering and harm to an innocent person in the name of Bronze Age mysticism. This is entirely independent of whether you think the 1st Amendment permits them to do it. btw

Quote :

"no, you want a nation that does what you think they should do and believes what you think is right, because you are the almighty disco_stu, and you will use children as an excuse for it. think of the children!!! better ban drugs, cause kids might use em. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!"

I'm fine with banning the distribution of harmful substances to children. Are you not?

Quote :

"No, YOU are not getting it. Parents have the RIGHT to make medical decisions for their child. You just don't like the decision these people make. Fuck you for pushing your beliefs on them. "

/facepalm. Honestly. Was the Constitution wrong before it gave blacks and women the right to vote? Could it be wrong now? Can you make a moral judgment without falling back on a centuries old document? To be clear, I'm not conceding that the 1st Amendment grants them this right any more than it grants me the right to harm you in the name of Freedom of Expression.

Quote :

"so, in pee drankin's world, parents also shouldn't be able to raise their children in the belief system of their choice, because, well, pee drankin says so! fuck that the Constitution grants us religious liberty, pee drankin is the actual authority on what religious beliefs are OK."

religious liberty up to the point that it harms another person. Please, just please tell me why this isn't so. If it were my religion to kill people, would the 1st Amendment protect me? Are Wahhabists killing non-Muslims protected by the 1st Amendment? What is the god damned difference between them and the child-killing parents? Hell, I find the parents worse because they are in a position of great trust in the care of the people they're killing and some backwards ass state laws give them a half-pass.

Quote :

"I pity the folks who were suckered by Scientology, because it is truly a scam. It's so much of a scam, that it's "founder" said it was a scam before he created the scam."

Yeah, believing that the Bible is the word of an omnibenevolent God is much more sane.

Quote :

"because there are some people who deem it so. it sucks, and we should allow them to be foolish about it in their own lives and not force them to pay for it if they don't want it."

Cry me a fucking river. How much money do churches scam away tax free?? BILLIONS every year. Aren't we then by your logic on the tab for this? Them whining about having to not pay for birth control for their employees really tugs at my heartstrings.

2/29/2012 11:49:44 PM

yeh look at all those churches and their mega money that they use building... um.. churches. and sending to aid in disasters.


yeh. look at those evil greedy corporations. let's burn them to the ground!!!

2/29/2012 11:57:17 PM

in fact you know what ANYTHING with money is bad!!

because if i don't have it NOBODY can have it!

wall street! fuck em!
banks! fuck that!
corporations... down with capitalism!!
bonuses!! NEVER AGAIN
churches and their donations! DOWN WITH IT!
white people and their greed, abolish it!!!

occupy wall street for life!!!

2/29/2012 11:58:38 PM

seriously wtf are you talking about? Are you just continuously stoned?

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 12:06 AM. Reason : .]

3/1/2012 12:06:19 AM

Quote :

"How much money do churches scam away tax free?? BILLIONS every year. THIS MONEY is not their money. it was STOLEN from people who DONATED it from their ALREADY TAXED PAYCHECKS and it is NOT THEIRS and SHOULD BE TAXED AGAIN"

i agree. in fact we should tax it yet again when they try to spend it during a humanitarian crisis or when delivering money or food to the poor they help

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 12:11 AM. Reason : ,]

3/1/2012 12:09:34 AM

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/
"Senate kills contraception amendment"

3/1/2012 12:38:05 PM

Quote :

"i agree. in fact we should tax it yet again when they try to spend it during a humanitarian crisis or when delivering money or food to the poor they help"

What about when delivering gold to their clubhouses places of worship


[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2012 1:12:06 PM

inorite

3/1/2012 1:55:38 PM

Quote :

"This argument is tired. It's fucking evil not by virtue of me thinking it. It's fucking evil because it causes immense suffering and harm to an innocent person in the name of Bronze Age mysticism."

so, again, it's evil because you say so. people practicing their religion is evil to you.

Quote :

"I'm fine with banning the distribution of harmful substances to children. Are you not?"

someone didn't read what I said.

Quote :

"Honestly. Was the Constitution wrong before it gave blacks and women the right to vote? Could it be wrong now?"

THEN AMEND THE FUCKING THING. How fucking hard is this concept?

Quote :

"religious liberty up to the point that it harms another person."

and you don't think inflicting emotional distress on the parents as you violate their religious freedom is "harm"? I sure as fuck do. You still haven't explained why parents can't make medical decisions for their children, now. You are declaring, by fiat, that your way is the best. Fuck, why even allow parents to make any decisions? You clearly know everything. let's just leave everything up to you. why the fuck should parents be able to raise their own children? fuck that!

Quote :

"If it were my religion to kill people, would the 1st Amendment protect me?"

again. praying =/= killing. get that through your thick, bigoted skull.

Quote :

"Cry me a fucking river. How much money do churches scam away tax free?? BILLIONS every year. Aren't we then by your logic on the tab for this?"

letting people keep their own money is not done on "our tab." That you think their money is yours is part of the reason you understand so little about how things actually work.

3/1/2012 3:10:13 PM

Quote :

"and you don't think inflicting emotional distress on the parents as you violate their religious freedom is "harm"? I sure as fuck do. You still haven't explained why parents can't make medical decisions for their children, now. You are declaring, by fiat, that your way is the best. Fuck, why even allow parents to make any decisions? You clearly know everything. let's just leave everything up to you. why the fuck should parents be able to raise their own children? fuck that! "

Of course they should be able to make medical decisions for their children and they should be able to make decisions about what is best for their children, however there is such a thing as negligence and abuse. If you choose to deny your child medical treatment, and they die then you absolutely should be held responsible. Sure, don't take your child to the doctor when he breaks his leg, pray over it all you want, but if he gets an infection and dies you should expect that your willful disregard for the safety and welfare of your child will be punished.

We are a nation of laws, some good, some bad. Yelling, "it's my religion" does not allow you to ignore those laws.

Religion does not give you a free pass to do whatever the fuck you want. You seem to have difficulty grasping this concept. There are limitations on the first amendment, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can be held responsible for slander and libel, etc. Religion is not a free pass to ignore law or abdicate your responsibility as a parent.

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 3:17 PM. Reason : asdfas]

3/1/2012 3:16:01 PM

Quote :

"however there is such a thing as negligence and abuse."

making a decision is not negligence. negligence is not giving a fuck. in this case, the people do give a fuck, and they are deciding on the course of action that their religion dictates is acceptable. would it have been negligence to pursue the same course of action 100 years ago? of course not.

Quote :

"Sure, don't take your child to the doctor when he breaks his leg, pray over it all you want, but if he gets an infection and dies you should expect that your willful disregard for the safety and welfare of your child will be punished."

so, basically, fuck your religion, you have no rights. got it.



it's odd how liberals are so into a woman's "right to privacy" with regard to medical procedures, yet they don't give a fuck about a parent's right to privacy regarding the medical procedures they will or will not have done on their children.

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 3:43 PM. Reason : ]

3/1/2012 3:35:32 PM

Quote :

"so, basically, fuck your religion, you have no rights. got it."

Your inability to grasp nuance is simply breathtaking.

Quote :

"making a decision is not negligence. negligence is not giving a fuck. in this case, the people do give a fuck, and they are deciding on the course of action that their religion dictates is acceptable."

That's actually not the way negligence is defined legally, or even what it means in a Merriam-Webster world, but whatever.

Threads like this are a perfect example of why no one, and I mean no one, respects your opinion on this board.

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/1/2012 3:42:32 PM

there isn't really nuance here, though. This is pretty cut and dry. Parents have a right to make medical decisions for their children, and they have a right to raise their children in their own preferred religion. You are claiming it's negligence for the parents to actively seek a course of treatment with which you disagree. that is simply absurd! they aren't trepanating children, for god's sake. They are fucking PRAYING.

3/1/2012 3:45:08 PM

hypothetical: What if the parents didn't have a religion. What if their kid got really sick or broke their leg or whatever and they decided to just not take them, told them to walk it off or rub dirt on it. Could that be negligence? Or because the parents did something, told them to walk it off, it absolves them from guilt?

Do you need the delusion of religion in order to do horrible shit, is that what you're saying? Or are you being obtuse on purpose?

You keep yelling at us that they are praying like that makes it okay....prayer doesn't work for solving illness, sorry. I mean if all we have to do is say its our religion then by your view ANYTHING IS PERMISSIBLE as long as we do it behind the veil of religion.

If they want to pray that's fine...no one is taking that right from them. no one has said you can't have faith, you can't go to church, just take care of your kids. We aren't saying THE AMISH HAVE TO GET TVS NOW AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE CELL PHONES. We are arguing, hey maybe not let your children die, that's kind of wrong.

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 3:51 PM. Reason : ...]

3/1/2012 3:48:07 PM

Quote :

"hypothetical: What if the parents didn't have a religion. What if their kid got really sick or broke their leg or whatever and they decided to just not take them, told them to walk it off or rub dirt on it. Could that be negligence? Or because the parents did something, told them to walk it off, it absolves them from guilt?"

this would be te definition of "not giving a fuck". They ignored it. As opposed to someone who actually did something about it that they thought would work, namely, praying.

Quote :

"We aren't saying THE AMISH HAVE TO GET TVS NOW AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE CELL PHONES"

actually, you are arguing exactly that. Like I said, 100 years ago, you wouldn't have questioned their decision. Now you do. The only difference is technology, which only goes to further my point that this is based in religion. you are saying we can overrule their religious belief because we have better technology, and that is simply not allowed under the 1st Amendment.

3/1/2012 3:53:13 PM

Quote :

"Or are you being obtuse on purpose?"

This (at least I hope), it's pretty much his meat and potatoes.

For reference, aaronburro, here's an article from 2009 about this subtopic we're arguing. Courts (who, just FYI, are the final arbiters of the law and who are responsible for deciding whether a law is constitutional, whether state or federal in their respective jurisdictions) have repeatedly come down on the side of doctors and those who attempt to actually care for the child.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1877352,00.html

Here is an article from 1995, and as it notes, on at least 2 occasions in California 2 sets of Christian Scientist parents have been convicted under negligence laws.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm

Quote :

"The California Penal Code holds that "any person who . . . willfully causes or permits any child to suffer . . . or permits that child to be placed in such a situation that its person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment." Within the past decade criminal convictions have been obtained in California against two sets of Christian Science parents who allowed their children to die without medical treatment."

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 3:57 PM. Reason : asdfsd]

3/1/2012 3:53:41 PM

Quote :

"this would be te definition of "not giving a fuck". They ignored it. As opposed to someone who actually did something about it that they thought would work, namely, praying."

I believe that rubbing dirt on that wound and walking it off would make it okay, works just as well as praying in my experience. Please explain to me how praying is doing something and telling my kid to walk it off are different.

3/1/2012 3:55:59 PM

^^ and those courts would be wrong, just as they were wrong when they said separate but equal was OK, and just as they were wrong when they said black men could never be citizens, and just as they were wrong when they said walmart can take your land if they will pay more taxes.

Quote :

"I believe that rubbing dirt on that wound and walking it off would make it okay, works just as well as praying in my experience."

show me which religion is saying this. Making up an absurd religion that doesn't exist is the height of dishonesty. We're talking about this one religion, CS, not your spaghetti monster.

3/1/2012 3:58:29 PM

Medically they're identical. In some cases legally they're different. Some state laws have given exemptions for religious belief and have said that if you make an effort based on your belief that you can avoid prosecution (most states don't have this exemption, and even when they do it's been a difficult defense to make). Basically, some states have said that ignorance and pig headedness are a defense if that's your religion, however it's difficult to present that defense if you know that medicine works or if you use things like bandages on cuts.

3/1/2012 4:00:22 PM

but you admit there is a difference.

look, I don't like that kids will die in this instance. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you don't like the Constitution, then amend it. Take away religious freedom. But don't come crying to me when some other religion demands that you bow down to their god or they'll cut your head off and they use the force of the federal government to enforce it. I'd rather have a few ignorant fools lose their own children and serve as an example to every one else why we shouldn't be ignorant fools than allow a different set of idiots to force their beliefs on me, just so we can save a couple of kids.

3/1/2012 4:01:16 PM

Quote :

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

How severely can I chasten my son with a rod? Are there any limits?

(I'm asking you, aaronburro)

3/1/2012 4:02:50 PM

how absurd of a question can you ask, A Tanzarian? how severely absurd a question can you ask?

3/1/2012 4:04:54 PM

I didn't realize it was a complicated or difficult to understand question.

Why is it an absurd question?

3/1/2012 4:07:48 PM

well, you've asked me a question based on scripture with no context to the case to which you wish to apply it. that is the absurdity. what religion? what is the instance of "chastising" we are talking about? care to go any further than a blanket out of context scripture reference?

3/1/2012 4:10:04 PM

Quote :

"but you admit there is a difference."

I admit that in legal terms, depending on the state, there have been exceptions made when laws were made, but as I mentioned it's a damned tough loophole to squeeze into. Morally they're both reprehensible in absolute terms.

Christian Science is basically a cult, in terms of it's size it's down to just 900 some odd churches, membership has been in decline for well over 3 decades. It's also a very, very young offshoot, it's wild popularity in the late 1800s and early 1900s got it some protection, but followers have been dwindling annually. It's really no different than snake handlers and strychnine drinkers. Your argument that 100 years ago no one would have questioned their decision is also incorrect, 100 years ago we had plenty of medical knowledge and no rational person even in 1912 would have thought the right and proper treatment for a broken leg or pneumonia was to pray/say fuck it and hope for the best.

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 4:13 PM. Reason : asdfs]

3/1/2012 4:10:38 PM

Quote :

"well, you've asked me a question based on scripture with no context to the case to which you wish to apply it. that is the absurdity. what religion? what is the instance of "chastising" we are talking about? care to go any further than a blanket out of context scripture reference?"

What religion is irrelevant; the well and widely known scripture quote is clearly from a religious text and one need not belong to a brick-and-mortar church (or, for that matter, any specific church at all) to earnestly believe the quote or the entire text.

We'll stick with the standard definitions of chasten (to inflict suffering upon for purposes of moral improvement) and rod (a stick, wand, staff, or the like, of wood, metal, or other material).

3/1/2012 4:20:10 PM

Quote :

"Christian Science is basically a cult, in terms of it's size it's down to just 900 some odd churches, membership has been in decline for well over 3 decades. "

so then you are worrying about a problem that is going to go away on its own due, in part, to the foolishness of the underlying religion's teachings. This is precisely what religious freedom allows, and it is how the problems that arise from it are solved. People see how stupid it is, and they find something else. Your solution to a temporary and disappearing problem is to shit on religious liberty that is specifically protected by the 1st Amendment and also to shit on parental rights to make medical decisions for their children.

Quote :

"100 years ago we had plenty of medical knowledge and no rational person even in 1912 would have thought the right and proper treatment for a broken leg or pneumonia was to pray/say fuck it and hope for the best."

you may be correct that most people wouldn't have said that was the best course, but given the gap between praying and the medical technology wasn't as wide as it is today, people then would have been willing to say that it was their right to practice their religion. The only thing that has changed today is that the gap is wider.

Quote :

"What religion is irrelevant"

no, it isn't, because then we go down the rabbit hole of making shit up and playing stump the chump. Give me an actual case that you want to talk about and don't just make up religious interpretations that no one actually uses just for the purpose of your argument. I could say that the Prodigal Son story was a religious prescription for burning people alive for eating peas with a knife. Should we talk about that?

3/1/2012 4:21:10 PM

aaronburro: what if a religion condoned abortion?

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2012 4:23:34 PM

McDouche: does one? does any religion say that women should give no thought to being sexually active and then be allowed to kill the unborn child that results from this?

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ]

3/1/2012 4:26:13 PM

He already said in the abortion thread he'd be OK with it.

The quote:

Quote :

"Does your religion specifically require the killing of bastard children? I mean, technically, Catholicism frowns on bastard children (except cute lil baby jeebus), but it also doesn't say to murder the bastard children. Thankfully, there are no religions that call for abortions, so I'm good for now But, if you can find me a bona fide religion which practices ritual abortions, then I'm not gonna stop it."

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM. Reason : ]

3/1/2012 4:26:25 PM

No, what I'm worried about it religion being constantly used as a shield to prevent accountability and its profound ability to retard the progress of humanity.

Our consitution prevents state sanctioned religion and offers the right to free exercise of religion. It does not allow you absolute right to do as you please under the guise of or under the protection of religious freedom when it infringes on the rights or lives of another person. We don't allow human sacrifice, we don't allow honor killings, and we don't allow negligent homicide.

Hopefully religion itself will one day disappear, but until then I hope that the damage it does can be minimized, especially to those who are not legally allowed to make their own decisions.

3/1/2012 4:26:39 PM

Quote :

"We don't allow human sacrifice, we don't allow honor killings,"

you are correct. and praying is not human sacrifice. it is not an honor killing.

3/1/2012 4:27:27 PM

i just started a church that is pro abortion in all scenarios. even when the mother and child are perfectly healthy.


this thread = pwnt.

3/1/2012 4:28:03 PM

Nope, but it is negligent homicide or at minimum gross indifference.

3/1/2012 4:28:20 PM

Quote :

"no, it isn't, because then we go down the rabbit hole of making shit up and playing stump the chump."

For the record, you consider well known quotes from one of the (if not the) most widely used religious text in the world to be "making shit up"?

Quote :

"don't just make up religious interpretations that no one actually uses just for the purpose of your argument."

Are you the arbiter of what constitutes a valid religious interpretation or practice? How many people must adhere to a particular religious interpretation before you consider it valid?

Quote :

"I could say that the Prodigal Son story was a religious prescription for burning people alive for eating peas with a knife. Should we talk about that?"

Sure.

3/1/2012 4:33:51 PM

you can only have negligence if the person is actually negligent. Actually taking steps that you feel are acceptable and afforded by 1st Amendment protections is not negligence. Ignoring the problem or pretending it doesn't exist is negligence.

^ no, I'm not the arbiter, but neither are you. I prefer not to go there and instead talk about practical, real-world examples. You have given none, and instead wish to make up your own absurd, non-existent ones.

"well-known quotes" that you are declaring by fiat have a specific meaning for your own devices. there's a difference. have any specific examples, or are you continuing to demand that the Prodigal son is a discussion about table manners?

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 4:36 PM. Reason : ]

3/1/2012 4:34:19 PM

For our purposes, we can consider the quote literally.


Unless, of course, literal interpretation of religious texts is a completely ridiculous thing that no one ever does.

3/1/2012 4:38:33 PM

so, for this purpose, we can consider the interpretation you choose, and not one that actually has any context to a specific situation. you know, the thing that I said was absurd

3/1/2012 4:39:08 PM

Yes, we will use the interpretation I choose because it is my earnestly held religious belief that, if I truly love my son, I must swiftly chasten him with a rod whenever and wherever he veers from the path of the righteous.

How severely can I chasten my son with a rod? Are there any limits?

3/1/2012 4:45:48 PM

welp, you've devolved into absurdity.

3/1/2012 5:00:08 PM

Nope, you led us there long ago with "religion makes child abuse ok!"

3/1/2012 5:11:44 PM

i was not aware I was saying that child abuse was OK. is praying now abuse? damn. I guess I must be clubbing baby seals every night as I pray to sweet little baby jeebus!

3/1/2012 5:12:19 PM

disco_stu: "Praying instead of doing something helpful when your kid is dying is abuse."
aaronburro: "Praying is abuse? lol"

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 5:18 PM. Reason : subject verb]

3/1/2012 5:18:10 PM

sorry, I don't consider prayer to be abuse. I consider beating the everliving shit out of your child to be abuse. Generally, abuse is considered an active concept, while neglect is considered an inactive one.


but, don't take it from me, let's look at the definition:
child abuse: the physical or emotional or sexual mistreatment of children.

so, is praying physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment? which is it, hmmmm?


or, maybe you want the fourth part, which really is a separate concept: neglect. And we've already covered neglect, as it must be where you don't give a fuck and don't take any actual steps of any sort. Despite the fact that we see the parent very much cares, and is taking steps to solve the child's health issues, they just take steps you don't like. so you call it neglect in order to remove their rights as a parent to make medical decisions for their child in accordance with their religious wishes. so then, we get back to disco_stu should be able to tell every parent what to do at any time, because disco_stu knows everything. have we gone full circle, yet?

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 5:26 PM. Reason : ]

3/1/2012 5:20:15 PM

Quote :

"child abuse: the physical or emotional or sexual mistreatment of children,. "

Not taking your child dying of operable cancer to the hospital is definitively the physical mistreatment of them. Believe the Constitution allows them to do this if you wish, but I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise. "Rate of Activity" is not a distinction important to abuse.

Quote :

"so you call it neglect in order to remove their rights as a parent to make medical decisions for their child in accordance with their religious wishes."

I call it neglect because it is neglect. You think they have this right and even if they do they shouldn't. Absent religion we wouldn't even be having this conversation. If that isn't an indictment of religion I have no idea what is.

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 5:29 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2012 5:27:27 PM