Religious Freedom Run-a-Muck?

[quote]aussie486 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote

I’ve never actually read a debate between you two, but I know one thing with more certainty than I know the sun will rise tomorrow, and that thing is that if you, ZEB, are debating someone, they are right and you are wrong.

[/quote]

LOL, never actually read a debate but Zeb is wrong, congrats on winning the most ignorant post so far in this thread, well done chump.[/quote]

I’m going to forgive you for this because it’s too much for me to expect everyone in an open forum to be smart enough to put two and two together, but I’ve debated ZEB before. I’m basing this judgement on personal experience, hence the reference to the sun rising.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
If I were a Christian, personally, I would be blaming God over the parents. I guess this kid’s survival just wasn’t vital enough in God’s plan to warrant a healing. Assuming the Christian God exists, the only mistake the parents made was trusting him. [/quote]

Well, they do believe that, actually. They believe it was God’s will for their son to die.

I’m not saying this is not idiot, just clarifying that they pretty much do believe what you are saying, though I wouldn’t use the word “blame,” for what they are probably feeling.

[/quote]

Hmm, then it can’t be helped.

I wonder how many of the Christians on this board have actually considered the possibility that maybe it really was God’s will for their son to die.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

A lefty siding with a lefty? OMG! Now who would have ever thought? [/quote]

I’m no lefty, but I suppose to someone who’s had a hemispherectomy on the left side of their brain, every full brained person would look like a ‘lefty’ relative to you.

[quote] Oh…and how was prom night you were supposed to give us a full report if you finally got laid.

Go ahead junior spill the beans.
[/quote]

What, don’t you have your mom’s phone-number?

Just a quick aside. The meme that the WSJ is a “conservative” paper has been soundly trounced by actual observation and in a peer reviewed and ostensibly sound study. It’s actually been shown to be, if I recall correctly, one of if not the MOST liberal papers there is. Seriously.

Has nothing to do with the point made above, I just wanted to point out that while everyone may believe the WSJ is some kind of right wing schill, it is anything but.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science. [/quote]

Science? Science is a method of study, not an event. It’s a measure. Therefore you would not call an event, “science”. That’s like calling a centimeter, a ruler.

What miracles are you referring too?[/quote]

life
[/quote]

Are you referring to abiogenesis?
[/quote]
with out researching Abiogenisis I would say not exactly. If there is a God then Science has to be his operating system . IMO for life to run smoothly you have to understand the operating system .I will reasearch that subject , thanks [/quote]

Science is a multitude of methods developed through the centuries to develop a working understanding of nature. Basically science=/=nature. Science is a way of describing nature. In fact, science is actually a relatively recent term. Since at the least the Greeks, what we would call science was called ‘natural philosophy’.

I would loosely agree depending on your definition of God if you took the word science out and replaced it with nature or existence.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Now if you’re done here, maybe you could go bug the Australian kid who has a hard-on for Obama?

[/quote]

Are my ears twitching or is there some Australian kid on this forum who likes Obama?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

OKANOGAN â?? A pretrial ruling upholding a state law that allows faith healing for Christian Scientists but not other religions will go unchallenged now that Greg and JaLea Swezey agreed to plea deals, their lawyer says.

As members of the Church of the First Born, the Swezeys believe in faith healing. They were accused of failing to call a doctor while their 17-year-old son died of a ruptured appendix, and they prayed for him to get better.

Before their trial, Okanogan County Superior Court Judge Chris Culp declined to dismiss their case after their attorneys argued that they were not being treated equally under the law.

State law â?? RCW 9A.42.005 â?? allows treatment by a â??duly accredited Christian Science practitioner in lieu of medical careâ?? but does not include treatment by other church practitioners.

â??They never wanted to be the poster child for changing the law in Washington, even though the law begs to be changed,â?? said Omak attorney Douglas â??Gilâ?? Webber, who represented Greg Swezey.

The Swezeys were acquitted of second-degree murder after a four-day trial in mid-May, but the jury could not agree on whether the Carlton couple should be convicted of second-degree manslaughter.

On Thursday, rather than face a retrial on manslaughter charges, JaLea Swezey pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal mistreatment on Thursday, and Greg Swezey signed papers agreeing to plead guilty to the same crime after two years, if he follows court orders and commits no felonies during that time.

Webber said by signing a plea deal, the Swezeys gave up their right to appeal the judgeâ??s ruling.

â??Itâ??s a bizarre thing that that law is out there,â?? he added.

A spokesperson for the Christian Science Church previously declined to define what it means to be a duly accredited practitioner.

Rita Swan, president of CHILD Inc., a national nonprofit group to that works to protect children from abusive religious and cultural practices, said Christian Science practitioners are not medically trained. She said while they are required to report child abuse and neglect to the state, the state Department of Social and Health Services does not include them in their list of mandated child abuse reporters.

She said sheâ??s disappointed that attorneys for the Swezeys wonâ??t be appealing the ruling.

â??I understand they have to do whatâ??s in the best interest of their clients,â?? she said, adding, â??Maybe there will be enough publicity that it will motivate the legislature to change this.â??


TL;DR Kid’s appendix bursts, parents decide to call faith “healer” instead of a real doctor and the kid dies. Parents receive no jail time and there is actually a law that protects faith “healers.”

[quote] Washington state law RCW 9A.42.005:

The legislature finds that there is a significant need to protect children and dependent persons, including frail elder and vulnerable adults, from abuse and neglect by their parents, by persons entrusted with their physical custody, or by persons employed to provide them with the basic necessities of life. The legislature further finds that such abuse and neglect often takes the forms of either withholding from them the basic necessities of life, including food, water, shelter, clothing, and health care, or abandoning them, or both.

Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature that criminal penalties be imposed on those guilty of such abuse or neglect. It is the intent of the legislature that a person who, in good faith, is furnished Christian Science treatment by a duly accredited Christian Science practitioner in lieu of medical care is not considered deprived of medically necessary health care or abandoned. Prosecutions under this chapter shall be consistent with the rules of evidence, including hearsay, under law.

[/quote]
[/quote]

So that’s Okanogan County Washington then? I assumed it would be Canada…moving to Washington and worried about your parents’ making you juggle rattlesnakes or refuse you a blood transfusion or something? What’s the trouble raj?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Now if you’re done here, maybe you could go bug the Australian kid who has a hard-on for Obama?

[/quote]

Are my ears twitching or is there some Australian kid on this forum who likes Obama?[/quote]

lol

I honestly don’t care if you start threads on Obama, you can start 10 a day for all I care.

I was told I was weird for starting threads on religion, I figured Cortes would speak to you next since some people find your interest in Obama weird.

Anyways, it was a joke.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You have to quote someone to discuss them? Not having quotes is not the substance of an argument. It sounds like you don’t know what substance even means.

Oh darn this doesn’t count because I didn’t quote you.[/quote]

Frankly, yes. A discussion of Jefferson’s beliefs without reference to Jefferson’s many written professions of those beliefs is futile and ridiculous. It might get published in some dank amateur corner of the internet but it would never see the light of day in a reputable outlet. The Wall Street Journal–whose editors have an unconcealed interest in showing that religion has a place in American politics–would literally never publish a piece of shit like that article.

If you are writing about Jefferson’s attitude toward religion and you do not refer directly to his writings, then your argument can be discounted.

If you make a claim in such a piece of writing, then you must show why it is so. If you do not, then you have not succeeded.

This is elementary school shit.[/quote]

So, if you are refuting ideas about Jefferson it is necessary to actually quote Jefferson…

interesting…

Wait.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Now if you’re done here, maybe you could go bug the Australian kid who has a hard-on for Obama?

[/quote]

Are my ears twitching or is there some Australian kid on this forum who likes Obama?[/quote]

lol

I honestly don’t care if you start threads on Obama, you can start 10 a day for all I care.

I was told I was weird for starting threads on religion, I figured Cortes would speak to you next since some people find your interest in Obama weird.

Anyways, it was a joke.
[/quote]

Well, that’s okay. So long as you don’t call me a “kid” sonny.

I know that some of the Hmong believe, or at least believed that certain ailments were blessings. There are examples of children and to my knowledge adults as well that suffer from epilepsy, but people from the culture identify seizures as ones communication with God, or an extra spiritual state that is sort of a gift. People who suffer from this, in some cases are sort of revered and admired for their special abilities…

Would it be impinging on religious freedoms to step in and treat these people? I’m not sure if any Hmong in the states do this, but I know its an issue overseas.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Now if you’re done here, maybe you could go bug the Australian kid who has a hard-on for Obama?

[/quote]

Are my ears twitching or is there some Australian kid on this forum who likes Obama?[/quote]

lol

I honestly don’t care if you start threads on Obama, you can start 10 a day for all I care.

I was told I was weird for starting threads on religion, I figured Cortes would speak to you next since some people find your interest in Obama weird.

Anyways, it was a joke.
[/quote]

For the record, I did not call you, personally, directly weird.

I will start doing so, though, if you keep repeating that I did.

Go back and check. I got close, but not quite. (^_~)

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science. [/quote]

Science? Science is a method of study, not an event. It’s a measure. Therefore you would not call an event, “science”. That’s like calling a centimeter, a ruler.

What miracles are you referring too?[/quote]

life
[/quote]

Are you referring to abiogenesis?
[/quote]
with out researching Abiogenisis I would say not exactly. If there is a God then Science has to be his operating system . IMO for life to run smoothly you have to understand the operating system .I will reasearch that subject , thanks [/quote]

Science is a measure not a method…Geez. It’s how WE find out about the world around us. It doesn’t control and manufacture anything, it just measures what’s already there. Science tries to explain things, that’s it.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science. [/quote]

Science? Science is a method of study, not an event. It’s a measure. Therefore you would not call an event, “science”. That’s like calling a centimeter, a ruler.

What miracles are you referring too?[/quote]

life
[/quote]

What is ‘life’?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science. [/quote]

Science? Science is a method of study, not an event. It’s a measure. Therefore you would not call an event, “science”. That’s like calling a centimeter, a ruler.

What miracles are you referring too?[/quote]

life
[/quote]

Are you referring to abiogenesis?
[/quote]
with out researching Abiogenisis I would say not exactly. If there is a God then Science has to be his operating system . IMO for life to run smoothly you have to understand the operating system .I will reasearch that subject , thanks [/quote]

Science is a measure not a method…Geez. It’s how WE find out about the world around us. It doesn’t control and manufacture anything, it just measures what’s already there. Science tries to explain things, that’s it.[/quote]

Oh what a small mind , Do you consider technology to be science ?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science. [/quote]

Science? Science is a method of study, not an event. It’s a measure. Therefore you would not call an event, “science”. That’s like calling a centimeter, a ruler.

What miracles are you referring too?[/quote]

life
[/quote]

What is ‘life’?
[/quote]

What an odd question

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science. [/quote]

Science? Science is a method of study, not an event. It’s a measure. Therefore you would not call an event, “science”. That’s like calling a centimeter, a ruler.

What miracles are you referring too?[/quote]

life
[/quote]

Are you referring to abiogenesis?
[/quote]
with out researching Abiogenisis I would say not exactly. If there is a God then Science has to be his operating system . IMO for life to run smoothly you have to understand the operating system .I will reasearch that subject , thanks [/quote]

Science is a measure not a method…Geez. It’s how WE find out about the world around us. It doesn’t control and manufacture anything, it just measures what’s already there. Science tries to explain things, that’s it.[/quote]

Oh what a small mind , Do you consider technology to be science ?
[/quote]

I have a small mind because I know what words mean and you don’t? LOL! K. What color is the sky in your little world?
No, technology is technology. If it were science we’d call it ‘science’. Technology is a result of scientific discoveries, but not science in itself. It uses science, it is not science.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science. [/quote]

Science? Science is a method of study, not an event. It’s a measure. Therefore you would not call an event, “science”. That’s like calling a centimeter, a ruler.

What miracles are you referring too?[/quote]

life
[/quote]

What is ‘life’?
[/quote]

What an odd question [/quote]

It’s a direct question.
So you don’t know what ‘life’ is? Then how do you know what has life and what does not?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science. [/quote]

Science? Science is a method of study, not an event. It’s a measure. Therefore you would not call an event, “science”. That’s like calling a centimeter, a ruler.

What miracles are you referring too?[/quote]

life
[/quote]

What is ‘life’?
[/quote]

What an odd question [/quote]

It’s a direct question.
So you don’t know what ‘life’ is? Then how do you know what has life and what does not?[/quote]

While the post will not give you a total answer . For example that spark in the eye or animation . If will give you a vague definition . Hope it helps :slight_smile:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You have to quote someone to discuss them? Not having quotes is not the substance of an argument. It sounds like you don’t know what substance even means.

Oh darn this doesn’t count because I didn’t quote you.[/quote]

Frankly, yes. A discussion of Jefferson’s beliefs without reference to Jefferson’s many written professions of those beliefs is futile and ridiculous. It might get published in some dank amateur corner of the internet but it would never see the light of day in a reputable outlet. The Wall Street Journal–whose editors have an unconcealed interest in showing that religion has a place in American politics–would literally never publish a piece of shit like that article.

If you are writing about Jefferson’s attitude toward religion and you do not refer directly to his writings, then your argument can be discounted.

If you make a claim in such a piece of writing, then you must show why it is so. If you do not, then you have not succeeded.

This is elementary school shit.[/quote]

So, if you are refuting ideas about Jefferson it is necessary to actually quote Jefferson…

interesting…

Wait.[/quote]

You know exactly what my point has been since the beginning and I don’t believe you are stupid enough to have missed it, or to disagree with it. I said she argued by assertion, without evidence. I did not purport to refute the substance of her essay–because there was literally no substance. This is uncontroversial. Any educated person unfortunate enough to stumble upon that article would have exactly the same response.

As an aside, there is good evidence that Jefferson was not as hostile to religion as atheists like to pretend. Ms. Hooper just didn’t use any of it. And therefore, fuck her opinion on the matter. (There is also good evidence for the atheists. Such is life in the real world of greys rather than the idealist’s fantastical black-and-white spank-movie version of history).

If you read it and agree, great. If not, that’s fine. I don’t care to invite another insincere red herring of a response, though, so let’s leave it at that.