He wants you to worship Him but gives you the option not to, such is the beauty of freedom, in that we get the opportunity to make the wrong decisions.

You're not separating the child from the parent. Yes, people have the right to kill themselves, but they don't have the right to kill others without their permission. Whether they meant to or not is irrelevant, other than the charge. If those parents made the decision to kill themselves because of their religion I'd say God bless, but they killed their daughter.

Lol. If you believe God is real you have no choice but to worship him or burn forever in the lake of fire. That's coercion not freedom.


Now read the second commandment.

Whether you be Muslim, Hindu or Jew, I believe there are infinite ways to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal lord and saviour

This post was edited by dro94 on Apr 22 2016 11:32am

The parent is ultimately responsible for what can be done medically to their child under the age of 18. They are their legal guardian. Therefore you're taking away that right from someone who would otherwise not seek treatment. All im saying is that is legally problematic IMO.

The case i referenced wasn't even for religious reasons though, the parents had put their daughter through the procedure a few times and it was agony, they noticed a nearly 100% loss of quality of life and their daughter was on painkillers and hardly coherent. I made the connection because a precedent from a parent who refuses treatment for religious reasons could also set a precedent that damns parents like the one in the example, even though it is not for religious reasons. Both are parents denying medical services to children who could be saved by it.

God disagrees with you.

It just has to be done on a case by case basis. If you feel you've been wronged by the government, then you take it to the courts.

But it's always complicated when you have 2 rights being in opposition to one another. You have religious freedom but you also have a right to live. And the government must ensure the safety for its citizens, otherwise what is the point of the government anyways.

If people refuse to vaccinate their children. They should be punished by public schools not allowing their children to attend. If a large number of parents start refusing to vaccinate to a large enough degree that outbreaks become feared. Then the government has to perform its duty and most likely start imprisoning and removing the parents rights to guardianship over their kids because they've proved they are incapable and they are endangering their child and other children.

And if people refuse medical treatment for their children that would cure them and arguably improve their life and they refuse to have it done. The government has a duty to protect the child. The child has a right to life and safety from harm.

If the government has overstepped its power or has mishandled a case, then it will just have to be fought for in the courts.

The alternative is way worse in giving parents free reign to potentially let their children die for their beliefs.

...but what does that even mean in your overview ?

- Stephen Colbert

peter popoff fake faith healer liar fuck