DOF:
Horse apples.  The state is hardly wary of the religious - witness tax exemptions, the right to limit their kids’ educations based on old legends, ‘faith-based funding’, the list goes on and on.  Religion practically gets a free pass.

elwed:
If with state we both refer to the U.S., this is a preposterous claim. How many openly atheistic people are in public service? I believe the answer to be zero. Do you have counter-examples? Are you implying there is indeed a hidden atheist conspiracy that runs the country? As far as I can tell, the current government bends over backwards to make more and more concessions to appease and yield more power to the Religious Right. You are right, though, that that state could care about poor little atheist me.

As to the state being wary of the religious, don’t you mistake not getting your way on constitutional grounds for something entirely different?

These responses are unnecessary.  I know the state is probably more favorable to religion than it should be, but if you recall my first post in this thread this whole discussion is stemming from the potential of the priest being held legally accountable and this becoming a precedent case for the state to more severely curb the freedom of religion.

elwed:
As to there being more then “chemical and physical reactions�?, that’s an apologistic canard not worthy of further response.

Please elaborate.

elwed:
No, it isn’t. Terrorism is a real threat, even if there is room for disagreement of the magnitude of it. The public should be involved in a consensus decision what, if any, civil liberties they are willing to forfeit. A good answer, by the way, would be “None�?.

In my analogy “protection against terrorism” is to “civil liberties” what “protection of human safety” is to “religious freedom”.  Even more simply stated: “protection against terrorism” = “protection of human safety” and “civil liberties” = “religious freedom”.  Are you asserting “protection against terrorism” is a real issue and “protection of human safety” isn’t?

elwed:
The guy next door to you had a religious epiphany that compels him you hit you repeatedly with a two-by-four. Do you consent? Or does he have to tie you up and tell you to stop squirming and moaning?

To this sort of situation I already objected.

me:
I’m not giving anybody leave to endanger my and my family’s safety.

I wouldn’t either.

elwed:
But should parents be able to determine what healthcare they choose to practice for themselves and their families?

This is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You think so.  I thought it was at the center of the discussion.

elwed:
In most states of the U.S., a notable example of which happens to be Florida, you have the right to refuse medical treatment, no justification asked. If such a refusal to seek treatment of a condition you are aware of results in injury to another person, can you give good cause why you shouldn’t be held legally liable?

Are you asserting truly insane people should be given life sentences for murdering people when they didn’t volunteer to be put in the asylum?  What about people with AIDS or HIV that engage in promiscuous activity without letting their partners know?  Do they get life sentences too?

elwed:
In a more general sense, you seem to imply that being misinformed and well-intentioned may be sufficient reason to escape prosecution. I believe the legal system will find this insufficient cause to set aside a judgement, but it may well reduce the severity of it.

Not necessarily misinformed, more like informed and apathetic to the info.

elwed:
If I were a parent responsible for a child should I be required to give my child medication to deal with ADHD?

Again off-topic. What you should do, of course, is whatever happens to be in the best interest of your child. If there is a medication that promises to be both safe and effective and no equivalent non-medicated treatment options are available, the decision is a no-brainer.

I thought this was the topic; the rights of the individual and private family to control their own well being.  What happened to survival of the fittest?  Are you gonna shed a tear when the prayerwarriors and their families can’t pray their way out of a plague?

OB:
If you’re a consenting adult and put your life and health in “god’s hands�? rather than those of a qualified medical practitioner, have at it.  But putting a minor child in physical danger should get that kid taken away from you.

How is a parent putting a minor child in danger by refusing to seek medical help?  Nature put the child in danger, not the parents.  A parent refusing to help a child coming down with a treatable but deadly disease is not the parents hanging their children over a lava pit and lowering them into a fiery grave.  Nature hung the child there and is lowering them to the fiery grave while the parents allow nature to run its course, or in other words “survival of the fittest.” Medicine to treat most of these diseases is a new thing.  Before a few hundred years ago, you get sick you’re screwed.  Why should our ability to advance medicine change the government from hopeless uninvolvement in the health of its citizens to forcing its citizens to survive?  Why isn’t allowing nature to take its course a civil liberty?

Theo:  I thought this was the topic; the rights of the individual and private family to control their own well being.

It’s about whether or not a NON family member was making those decisions. 

When you prevent me from going to a doctor to get medical help b/c your religion prohibits it, that’s where your religous freedom ends.

I know the state is probably more favorable to religion than it should be, but if you recall my first post in this thread this whole discussion is stemming from the potential of the priest being held legally accountable and this becoming a precedent case for the state to more severely curb the freedom of religion.

If you recall, it was you who broadened the narrow issue Consi raised.

Please elaborate.

No.

In my analogy “protection against terrorism�? is to “civil liberties�? what “protection of human safety�? is to “religious freedom�?.  Even more simply stated: “protection against terrorism�? = “protection of human safety�? and “civil liberties�? = “religious freedom�?.  Are you asserting “protection against terrorism�? is a real issue and “protection of human safety�? isn’t?

There are terrorists who are aided and abetted by their own religious authorities. People who blow up bus passengers with the blessing of religious leaders are arguably proper practicioners of their religion. Should the priests that allow them to go forward be held legally responsible?

You think so.  I thought it was at the center of the discussion.

Point taken, but it is still off-topic. At issue is not whether the woman should have sought treatment. At issue is whether the priest practiced medicine without proper license.

Are you asserting truly insane people should be given life sentences for murdering people when they didn’t volunteer to be put in the asylum?

Interesting question. If they were sane first and had reason to suspect that their untreated mental illness would lead them to turn into murderers, they should be charged as an accomplice if they can be successfully treated. If such a case would ever go to court is another question.

What about people with AIDS or HIV that engage in promiscuous activity without letting their partners know?  Do they get life sentences too?

If they were aware of being infected, absolutely. Even better, lynch the bastards and save the state the cost of a trial and the incarceration.

I thought this was the topic; the rights of the individual and private family to control their own well being.

See above, this is not the topic at all. The issue is whether or not the priest treated a mental health condition, without proper training or authority to do so and more importantly, if in doing so he prevented to woman from seeing qualified help.

Depending on state or other law, the family was likely free to refuse such treatment. If they did so out of their own volition, then whoever participated in that decision should be held legally accountable for the murder of the child.

What happened to survival of the fittest?  Are you gonna shed a tear when the prayerwarriors and their families can’t pray their way out of a plague?

First, get your Darwinism right.

Theo, you broadened the scope of this topic right off the bat by stating that religious freedom (whatever you understand that to be) may justifiably infringe on other people’s safety. You steadfastly refuse, though, to give examples that delineate where you draw the line.

Until such time as you fully explain yourself, it’s futile to continue this exchange.

How is a parent putting a minor child in danger by refusing to seek medical help?  Nature put the child in danger, not the parents.  A parent refusing to help a child coming down with a treatable but deadly disease is not the parents hanging their children over a lava pit and lowering them into a fiery grave.

I disagree.  Wilfully refusing to seek medical treatment for a desperately ill child is exactly the same as hanging that child over a fiery pit of lava.  In either case, the child is knowingly being put in harm’s way by the person/people charged with the health and well-being of the child.

Nature hung the child there and is lowering them to the fiery grave while the parents allow nature to run its course, or in other words “survival of the fittest.�? Medicine to treat most of these diseases is a new thing.  Before a few hundred years ago, you get sick you’re screwed.  Why should our ability to advance medicine change the government from hopeless uninvolvement in the health of its citizens to forcing its citizens to survive?  Why isn’t allowing nature to take its course a civil liberty?

“Nature” isn’t conscious or sentient, while the parents are assumed to be, in light of their being human adults with a brain.

The fact that there have been advances in medicine and technology that have proven effective in keeping people from dying of previously “untreatable” infections and diseases is precisely why parents should be held accountable if their religious beliefs result in their child being hurt or killed.  If they choose to refuse treatment for their OWN medical issues because they subscribe to ancient superstition, well then they deserve to die.  Imperiling the life of a child who hasn’t made an informed, conscious choice to either subscribe to the superstition or refuse treatment based on those beliefs is the worst sort of negligence, and in fact ought to be considered child abuse.  Children are legally incapable of providing consent, and parents have a legal (and MORAL) obligation to protect them.

A parent’s refusal to accept that medical treatment for certain illnesses is more effective than divine intervention should not protect them from being held liable when their child is injured or killed as a result of their delusions.  In those cases where parental religious objections endanger children, the government has an obligation to step in just as they would if the parent were otherwise neglecting or abusing a child.

elwed:
If you recall, it was you who broadened the narrow issue Consi raised.

So?

elwed:
Please elaborate.

No.

If you don’t think that was a fair summary of materialist ontology then I’d like to know why.

elwed:
Should the priests that allow them to go forward be held legally responsible?

This is a tough question.  At first I would be tempted to answer no they should not.  No one but those who made the decision to run planes into buildings should be held responsible for that decision.  They were free to make that decision and they made it.  The influence of a religious leader should not factor in.  I say that because the existentialist within says that a stop sign only stops me if I let it.  I am free to make any choice always, but must be responsible for the choices I make.

Then again maybe they should be held accountable because in the case of the Islamic imam this could be chalked up to hate speech if all they did was preach that it should be done and did not supply them with weapons and means to accomplish the deed.  But hate speech would be the exception to the rule.  Encouraging somebody to pray for healing and neglect treatment is not hate speech so the American priest in our example would be free.

Finally is hate speech a sufficient reason to be an exception to religious leaders not being held accountable for the actions of the clergy?  Hate speech is a touchy subject and I’m not sure where I stand on it as a civil liberty.  So in the end my analysis is that the American priest gets off and the Islamic imam’s fate is undecided.

elwed:
At issue is whether the priest practiced medicine without proper license.

The priest practiced religion.  If a priest tried to bandage a wound for somebody and that person got infected because the priest wasn’t careful to make sure everything was sterile then the priest could get in trouble for practicing medicine.  Advice is not medicine.

elwed:
If they were sane first and had reason to suspect that their untreated mental illness would lead them to turn into murderers, they should be charged as an accomplice if they can be successfully treated.

Fair analysis.  I don’t know if I agree, not saying that I disagree, I just don’t know.

elwed:
If they were aware of being infected, absolutely. Even better, lynch the bastards and save the state the cost of a trial and the incarceration.

I think that’s a fair judgement too, to an extent.  Maybe I shelter myself too much, but have you ever heard of a person with AIDS or HIV being charged with any kind of felony for spreading the disease through promiscuity?  I haven’t.  So why aren’t they?  I know it happens.

elwed:
The issue is whether or not the priest treated a mental health condition, without proper training or authority to do so and more importantly, if in doing so he prevented to woman from seeing qualified help.

No he didn’t.  Unless the priest made it physically difficult for the person with the mental health problem or the family members of that person to get that person a qualified professional opinion, I think the priest shouldn’t be touched.

elwed:
Depending on state or other law, the family was likely free to refuse such treatment. If they did so out of their own volition, then whoever participated in that decision should be held legally accountable for the murder of the child.

What example or family are you referring to in this analysis?

elwed:
First, get your Darwinism right.

Why doesn’t survival of the fittest fit in the context I used it?

elwed:
You steadfastly refuse, though, to give examples that delineate where you draw the line.

That’s because I can’t draw a line thin enough to do it justice.  I think for the most part all of this has to be taken on a case by case basis.  If I drew a line it would be broad and you and others would reasonably and fairly tear it apart with fringe examples.  Then I would redraw the line a little thinner and this would continue for a long time as we could likely come up with a lot of examples that an absolute rule of thumb may not justly be able to address fully.  If you have advice or recommendation I’d be willing to consider because I think this is an interesting discussion to continue.

OB:
Wilfully refusing to seek medical treatment for a desperately ill child is exactly the same as hanging that child over a fiery pit of lava.  In either case, the child is knowingly being put in harm’s way by the person/people charged with the health and well-being of the child.
...
Imperiling the life of a child who hasn’t made an informed, conscious choice to either subscribe to the superstition or refuse treatment based on those beliefs is the worst sort of negligence, and in fact ought to be considered child abuse.  Children are legally incapable of providing consent, and parents have a legal (and MORAL) obligation to protect them.

We may end up having to agree to disagree, but I want to pursue one more thing before giving entirely up on this exchange.  Why can’t that line of reasoning be used against abortion?(uh oh there’s the abortion tangent RUN!! ) I suspect I can already guess a portion of your response, but I don’t have time to predefeat it as I’m already running late for a meeting as I type.

OB:
In those cases where parental religious objections endanger children, the government has an obligation to step in just as they would if the parent were otherwise neglecting or abusing a child.

And how is that going to be defined?  What else will this allow the state to control in the future given this concession of privacy?  Why not birth the children into state run “development centers” where the education and upbringing of the child will follow the latest accepted sociological methods and research to insure a perfect generation of children?  Ridiculous?  Probably, but I’m not sure it’s entirely unjustified.

Just Google “charged with knowingly spreading aids virus” - there are apparently laws against it.  Here’s a story about a man sentenced to 21 years for doing that.

This is a tough question.

I find that the only toughness involved concerns the probable extraterritorial application of national law.

Maybe I shelter myself too much, but have you ever heard of a person with AIDS or HIV being charged with any kind of felony for spreading the disease through promiscuity?

You are too sheltered. These cases have gone to trial and at least some of these scumbags have been convicted. See also Cindy’s post in this recent thread on SEB.

Unless the priest made it physically difficult for the person with the mental health problem or the family members of that person to get that person a qualified professional opinion, I think the priest shouldn’t be touched.

I strongly disagree. If the priest prevented the woman from receiving proper treatment, it doesn’t matter to me if he physically restrained her or “just” conned her.

What example or family are you referring to in this analysis?

The opening post, of course.

That’s because I can’t draw a line thin enough to do it justice.

I have no problem at all drawing such a line. If your religion is a danger to my safety, don’t expect me to even turn the first cheek.

I am simply astonished that you even allow for the possibility that the exercise of one person’s religion may jeopardize the safety of another, without the possibility for legal recourse if a third party does indeed get hurt.

While I don’t believe that you’d go quite that far, it sounds suspiciously like “I’m willing to die defending your right to burn that witch.”

Theo said: Advice is not medicine.

That is right.  However, advice about mental illness is counseling which requires a license.  Many, if not most, states have a statutory exemption for the religious that allows them to do counseling without having a counseling license. 

The issue is fairly straight forward when counseling services are provided by anyone who holds themself out to be a counselor.  The reasonable counselor standard applies. 

What you are advocating for is an affirmative defense to negligence that amounts to this: The pastors may be negligent for not referring the crazy to more qualified care, but that’s okay because the negligent care was provided by a member of the clergy.

I query to you Theo the following: Shouldn’t all of God’s children be entitled to competent counseling for mental illness under the law whether the are unfortunate enough to receive it from a head shrinker or from a quak pastor?

Double dipping because volokh.com has an article that bears on a minor point in the above discussion.

That point is illustrated in the following exchange:

You are not the religious person that now has the state incredibly wary of him,....

To which DOF responded:

he state is hardly wary of the religious - witness tax exemptions, the right to limit their kids’ educations based on old legends, ‘faith-based funding’, the list goes on and on.  Religion practically gets a free pass.

and Elwed agreed in turn that such a claim was preposterous and expounded that

As to the state being wary of the religious, don’t you mistake not getting your way on constitutional grounds for something entirely different?

Theo then backed down.  But should he have?  Probably not, if he was referring to judicial branch of government reflecting a hostility in negative outcomes for mainstream Christians.

From Greg Sisk’s article at volokh.com

Indeed, the single most prominent, salient, and consistent influence on judicial decisionmaking in our study was religion—religion in terms of affiliation of the claimant, the background of the judge, and the demographics of the community, independent of other background and political variables commonly used in empirical tests of judicial behavior.

Let me cut to the chase and set out the pertinent findings for this week’s discussion:

First, those religious groupings that both today and historically have been regarded as outsiders or minorities, such as Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, and various others (including Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists), did not succeed or fail in making religious liberty claims at a rate (controlling for all other variables) that was significantly different than for other religious classifications. In sum, with the potential exception of Muslim claimants in certain claim subcategories, religious minorities did not experience disproportionately unfavorable treatments in the federal courts of the 1980s and 1990s.

Second, two categories of religious affiliation by claimants emerged as consistently and significantly associated with a negative outcome—Catholic (at the 99% probability level) and Baptist (at the 95% probability level).

Looks like empirical evidence indicates that mainstream Christians are the ones who should be bitching and moaning not the whiney atheists.

Looks like empirical evidence indicates that mainstream Christians are the ones who should be bitching and moaning not the whiney atheists.

So how do we whiney atheists fare?

Are there any atheist federal judges? In the unlikely event that there are any, do they exhibit a bias?

I’m glad to hear, though, that it’s better to have no religious affiliation than having the wrong one.

Triple dipping as a form of affirmative action for the oppressed majority:

But the present period is one in which
“the culture’s predominant religious traditions�? increasingly find themselves in conflict with the political decrees of a liberal secularism that prevails in certain regions (especially urban
areas) and among certain sectors of society (including the legal profession). Accordingly, orthodox Christians who seek accommodations
that reflect traditional religious values may not
be at all well-positioned for litigative success in the modern era—especially before a judiciary that is drawn largely from the cultural elite.

http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/Siskwebpagestuff/Sisk.Trad.Minor.Religions.pdf

The Man is stepping on Christians not atheists!!!

DOF:
Just Google “charged with knowingly spreading aids virus�? - there are apparently laws against it.  Here’s a story about a man sentenced to 21 years for doing that.

elwed:
You are too sheltered. These cases have gone to trial and at least some of these scumbags have been convicted. See also Cindy’s post in this recent thread on SEB.

It’s good to know the state is consistent in this respect.

elwed:
I strongly disagree. If the priest prevented the woman from receiving proper treatment, it doesn’t matter to me if he physically restrained her or “just�? conned her.

I would disagree that a priest can prevent someone from proper treatment without physical intervention.  The “prevention” otherwise is all in the mind of the person receiving the bad advice.  What they need is to realize they are not bound by other peoples decisions but only their own.  The bad advice was a stop sign erroneously placed.  The stop sign does not cause us to stop.  We stop because we choose to give it meaning which would cause us to choose to stop.  We don’t ever have to choose to stop if don’t wish to.

We need more existentialists in the world.  I blame the materialists for causing people to think they are prevented from doing something because someone gave them bad advice not to do something.  “Be a good little cog in the determined material universe and run your course to insanity because you can’t really choose to be free and informed.” Screw that.  People need to realize they are free and the extent to which they are not free to make certain choices about how they will act is only in their mind.

elwed:
Depending on state or other law, the family was likely free to refuse such treatment. If they did so out of their own volition, then whoever participated in that decision should be held legally accountable for the murder of the child.

So you mean that whoever of the family chose not to have the wife thrown in the asylum should be held accountable for the murder of the daughter? (making sure we’re clear on what your suggesting)

elwed:
I have no problem at all drawing such a line. If your religion is a danger to my safety, don’t expect me to even turn the first cheek.

I am simply astonished that you even allow for the possibility that the exercise of one person’s religion may jeopardize the safety of another, without the possibility for legal recourse if a third party does indeed get hurt.

While I don’t believe that you’d go quite that far, it sounds suspiciously like “I’m willing to die defending your right to burn that witch.�?

I agree wholeheartedly with you that one individual’s religious practices should never interfere with another individual’s freedom or ability to live life as they see fit.  In this case an individual is a person legally independent and self-responsible.

What my issue is is that the state should not be able to tell a parent how to take care of their children.  Notice take care is not including discipline.  A parent beating and abusing a child deserves to spend time behind bars.  A parent refusing a child medical care is not the same thing.  Nature attacked the child it is between the child and nature to decide what happens.  The parent can choose and often will choose to intervene but the government should not be allowed to say that the parent has to get between a sick child and nature.  In my mind this is like the “right to die” issue.

consi:
What you are advocating for is an affirmative defense to negligence that amounts to this: The pastors may be negligent for not referring the crazy to more qualified care, but that’s okay because the negligent care was provided by a member of the clergy.

I assure you I’m not limiting it to clergy.  If homeless Bob tells you not to take your meds its no different than Pat Robertson doing the same.  Negligent care is not provided by anyone.  Negligent care is accepted by the “unfit.”

consi:
I query to you Theo the following: Shouldn’t all of God’s children be entitled to competent counseling for mental illness under the law whether the are unfortunate enough to receive it from a head shrinker or from a quak pastor?

The wording of your question makes me unsure as to whether you’re asking if we should socialize healthcare of if a head shrinker is better than a quack pastor.

Consi, as interesting as that study is (Catholics take it in the shorts, while other religious groups come out about even) it does not in itself indicate bias.  Omitted is the key variable of what they were asking for in court.

I have the same problem with affirmative action claims.  A disparity of result, sans information about the qualification of the loan/job/housing applicants, means very little. Ditto for claims that certain ethnic groups get more tickets - no information is ever given as to if there is a real disparity in driving habits. 

I still think our country gives a pretty sweet ride to metaphysical nonsense.

Consi,

The Man is stepping on Christians not atheists!!!

Suck it up, man.

Theo,

I would disagree that a priest can prevent someone from proper treatment without physical intervention.

Ever heard of con artist?

People need to realize they are free and the extent to which they are not free to make certain choices about how they will act is only in their mind.

And with the freedom to make choices comes the obligation to accept the consequences of these choices.

What my issue is is that the state should not be able to tell a parent how to take care of their children.

But that’s not the issue Consi raised, unless the state happens to be a theocracy.

Nature attacked the child it is between the child and nature to decide what happens.  The parent can choose and often will choose to intervene but the government should not be allowed to say that the parent has to get between a sick child and nature.  In my mind this is like the “right to die�? issue.

I hope you never have children or are entrusted with a child’s care.

Theo, the whole notion of free will, IMO, is grossly overrated. There are real, natural, consequential realities that influence our decision making - as individuals and as a group. Economics has shown this successfully for a half-century.

As such, will cannot be free so long as the actions of one person may create circumstances which influence the decisions of another. In other words, if “free will” exists, than it can only extend in it’s influence so far as the “free will” of others. In which case, such decisions are not about choice, they are about power. To be free, we are either gods or we merely make decisions that are inconsequential, and I find both to be absurd.

To tell me that I can choose to fly and that anything saying otherwise is only in my head is a flat lie. It attributes far too much power to the human mind, which time has shown can be an extremely vulnerable, fragile thing. There can be little doubt of the reality of mental illness, of effects of psychological abuse, etc. and those who believe otherwise are duly pressured to show evidence for such beliefs. Until you can accept that this woman was, insofar as professional diagnosis is concerned, incapable of seeing to her own welfare to the degree that you and I have, then we can’t be saying that she can, in any way, think herself away from the problems at hand. For as long as she is so incapable, she is at the mercy of her advisors.

Why should our ability to advance medicine change the government from hopeless uninvolvement in the health of its citizens to forcing its citizens to survive?  Why isn’t allowing nature to take its course a civil liberty?

Just because we are animals doesn’t mean that we have to act that way. That is why we have free will. The mere fact that you insist that others suffer because of “nature” shows that you have no empathy for your fellow human being. A lion should eat your face.

DOF:

Surely you know that I would not offer to the plate a law review article that didn’t study whether the claims were weaker.  Well, maybe you don’t, and maybe I would just for sport, but in this case, the researchers have looked at the claims themselves.  See Part II, Section E entitled “Testing the Alternative Suggestion That Catholic and
Baptist Claims Were Weaker on Merits.” The short answer is no.

Theo:

If you didn’t want to answer the query, you should just say so.  So, since you didn’t and qualifying the question as not to encompass any aspect of socializing health care I repeat in a slightly rephrased fashion the following:

When one of God’s children receives negligent counseling, why is that you want to deny the wronged recompense from those who wronged them?  As a follow up, what did those of God’s children do that they should be denied compensation except to seek solace from those holding themselves out to be warriors on behalf of God?

Negligent care is not provided by anyone.  Negligent care is accepted by the “unfit.�?

I missed this.  It needs to be addressed. 

Negligent care is accepted by the “unfit.” Well, let me break it to you Theo, but folks who go in for counseling, spiritual or otherwise are emotional struggling.  They are not emotional fit.  They are emotionally unfit as you so bluntly put it.

Nevertheless, to prey on this unfitness, in a time of a need is deplorable.  To blame the victim for being preyed upon is even more so.

Furthermore, it ignores the whole legal concept for the existence of what is known as a fiduciary duty.  The law imposes special duties upon certain professions.  Those professions include but are not limited to: doctors, lawyers, and counselors.

The law understands human nature and takes these professions out of the context of caveat emptor.  There is something distinctly different in the relationship between a troubled human being seeking help from a licensed counselor and Joe Blow looking to purchase a vacuum.

Let me follow up again with some further queries:

1) Do you understand the concept of a fiduciary duty?

2) Do you understand why the law would impose such a duty on certain professions?

3) Do you agree with the imposition of such a duty?

4) Why or why not?

elwed:
Ever heard of con artist?

The priest isn’t even close to a con artist.  A con artist gains something tangible out of someone else’s gullibility.  How does a priest gain anything from the death of a member of his church?

elwed:
And with the freedom to make choices comes the obligation to accept the consequences of these choices.

Agreed.

elwed:
But that’s not the issue Consi raised…

So?  I don’t think it’s so different that it’s so unrelated that it shouldn’t be raised.  It’s not like the issue I raised is a non-issue.

elwed:
Nature attacked the child it is between the child and nature to decide what happens.  The parent can choose and often will choose to intervene but the government should not be allowed to say that the parent has to get between a sick child and nature.  In my mind this is like the “right to die�? issue.

I hope you never have children or are entrusted with a child’s care.

Is my logic flawed?  Or do you have a more solid critique for these ideas about parenting that would come across more clearly than “because I said so?”

arc_legion:
Theo, the whole notion of free will, IMO, is grossly overrated. There are real, natural, consequential realities that influence our decision making - as individuals and as a group. Economics has shown this successfully for a half-century.

As such, will cannot be free so long as the actions of one person may create circumstances which influence the decisions of another. In other words, if “free will�? exists, than it can only extend in it’s influence so far as the “free will�? of others. In which case, such decisions are not about choice, they are about power. To be free, we are either gods or we merely make decisions that are inconsequential, and I find both to be absurd.

The million dollar question would be can you have a materialist ontology and come to any other conclusion?  I bet you were determined to think that.

arc_legion:
To tell me that I can choose to fly and that anything saying otherwise is only in my head is a flat lie. It attributes far too much power to the human mind, which time has shown can be an extremely vulnerable, fragile thing.

I’m not talking about flying.  I’m talking about how we attribute meaning and value.

arc_legion:
There can be little doubt of the reality of mental illness, of effects of psychological abuse, etc. and those who believe otherwise are duly pressured to show evidence for such beliefs. Until you can accept that this woman was, insofar as professional diagnosis is concerned, incapable of seeing to her own welfare to the degree that you and I have, then we can’t be saying that she can, in any way, think herself away from the problems at hand.

There can be little doubt from the materialist don’t pretend to speak for the rest of us.

arc_legion:
For as long as she is so incapable, she is at the mercy of her advisors.

Yet, what about her insanity requires opinions coming from some people rather than others to be valued more highly than others?  Could she be insane in more ways than one?  Meaning that she has to have one form of insanity to give value to the opinions of certain people over others and another kind of insanity to follow through on the advice.  So then who can say they are truly sane?  probably the materialists with their empirical reproducible evidence.  How convenient.

errandchild:
Just because we are animals doesn’t mean that we have to act that way. That is why we have free will. The mere fact that you insist that others suffer because of “nature�? shows that you have no empathy for your fellow human being.

What free will can a person have if they must constantly react to nature’s demands?  Wouldn’t I be more free if I react when and if I choose to?

Consi:
When one of God’s children receives negligent counseling, why is that you want to deny the wronged recompense from those who wronged them?

Just because you worded it like you did:

Romans 12:19 KJVA Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Consi:
As a follow up, what did those of God’s children do that they should be denied compensation except to seek solace from those holding themselves out to be warriors on behalf of God?

Are you asking why life isn’t fair?

consi:
To blame the victim for being preyed upon is even more so.

I’m not blaming them for being preyed on but allowing themselves to become prey.  How do you tell the attackers from the defenders in war?  If the best defense is a good offense then you shouldn’t be able to tell them apart.  The ones exercise their freedoms will never cease the attack despite their situation.  Take life by the horns.  Find the Patton within.  All that jazz.

consi:
Furthermore, it ignores the whole legal concept for the existence of what is known as a fiduciary duty.  The law imposes special duties upon certain professions.  Those professions include but are not limited to: doctors, lawyers, and counselors.

The law understands human nature and takes these professions out of the context of caveat emptor.  There is something distinctly different in the relationship between a troubled human being seeking help from a licensed counselor and Joe Blow looking to purchase a vacuum.

Looks like a continuum to me.  I bet you can’t draw the line thin enough to make the duality you are asserting truly and absolutely apparent.  The difference between Joe Blow buying a vacuum cleaner and somebody seeking medical advice is only a degree of seriousness.

consi:
1) Do you understand the concept of a fiduciary duty?

So far as you have explained it I do.

consi:
2) Do you understand why the law would impose such a duty on certain professions?

I can see why it would want to, but I’m not sure that it is truly able.

consi:
3) Do you agree with the imposition of such a duty?

4) Why or why not?

I might if the line could be drawn much finer than it is, but I highly doubt it can be done.

Theo:

consi:
2) Do you understand why the law would impose such a duty on certain professions?

I can see why it would want to, but I’m not sure that it is truly able.

There are in fact civil and criminal laws meant to protect people from malpractice by professionals like doctors, lawyers and counselors - as well as “con men.”

Now, pardon my ignorance, being that I’m just a high school grad from a shithole factory town… but you’re flinging around the word “materialist” as though it’s a bad thing, and that you have some other, superior, way to look at the REAL world. 

Y’know, the world where some people are fucked up in the head enough to believe in demons, and others are fucked up enough to murder their own children for “religious reasons.”

The inability to deal with the real world AS IT IS is one of the reasons I’d like to see humanity finally rid themselves of the shackles and delusions of god belief.  As long as they think there’s some “afterlife” or “other world,” it’s far too easy for them to ignore what’s happening in THIS one.

Consi: Surely you know that I would not offer to the plate a law review article that didn’t study whether the claims were weaker.  Well, maybe you don’t…

It was the second one, sorry.  The confusion of correlation with cause when only one of many variables is accounted for, is all too common.  For example, did you know that practically every serial killer who ever lived drank cow’s milk at least occasionally? 

Theo,

The priest isn’t even close to a con artist.

Depending on how you look at it, priests are the ultimate con artists. The reason to draw that comparison is not what they gain, but how they gain it. Neither one requires physical restraint.

It’s not like the issue I raised is a non-issue.

Then post another thread and stay on topic here.

“I hope you never have children or are entrusted with a child’s care.”

Is my logic flawed?  Or do you have a more solid critique for these ideas about parenting that would come across more clearly than “because I said so?�?

Are you really that clueless why your ideas about parenting are abhorrent to actual parents? If so, I’m not going to spell it out for you.

Consi: “To blame the victim for being preyed upon is even more (deplorable).”

I’m not blaming them for being preyed on but allowing themselves to become prey.  How do you tell the attackers from the defenders in war?  If the best defense is a good offense then you shouldn’t be able to tell them apart.  The ones exercise their freedoms will never cease the attack despite their situation.  Take life by the horns.  Find the Patton within.  All that jazz.

Theo, the sum total of your posts in this thread paints a disturbing picture of your philosophies.

Not to jump into the middle of this conversation with a distraction, but I just had to comment on…

The priest isn’t even close to a con artist.

...and say that there are plenty of people, myself included, who would argue that Priests are the ultimate con artists.

I hadn’t commented yet on this one;

Nature attacked the child it is between the child and nature to decide what happens.

One time when I was out walking with my then 8-year-old son, we were confronted by a large dog barking and growling.  Without even thinking about it, I stepped in between the dog and my son.

There was a very nervous (and long) couple minutes with the dog threatening, me holding my coat in front of me like a decoy, and telling my son to stay behind me and back away slowly.  Then the owner came up and restrained the animal.

I didn’t figure it was between the dog and my son to decide what happened.  Nor did I have any set limit to the depth of involvement there - the dog wasn’t going to bite my son.  Period.

The million dollar question would be can you have a materialist ontology and come to any other conclusion?  I bet you were determined to think that.

I could make up any sort of crap I wanted to justify whatever way I’m thinking, but the bottom line is, I’m not making this up. If you don’t want to back your statements up, fine, but that’s a cop-out on your part. As for how I got to this conclusion, I spent a lot of time manipulating people and learning how they reacted as a kid. I learned very quickly that most people are shmucks, and it’s typically easy to manipulate them should there ever be a need.

I’m not talking about flying.  I’m talking about how we attribute meaning and value.

And I’m saying, based on the above reasoning, that you are attributing far too much meaning and value to what the human mind is capable of. You cannot reasonably deny that there are realities outside what we think of things, and that those realities take an utmost presence in the results of our decision-making, as the case of gravity presents. In some cases, as with this woman who was declared unfit to stand trial, it makes certain decisions impractical or impossible, no matter if they seem reasonable to others. Simply because you and I are capable of it does not mean this woman was.

Nature attacked the child it is between the child and nature to decide what happens.

Are you suggesting that we are not a part of Nature, and aren’t also a participant in the situation? If that’s not the case, why would you let your child suffer? Surely you must have some preference as to the child’s welfare.

probably the materialists with their empirical reproducible evidence.  How convenient.

Tell me you aren’t calling psychiatrists, doctors, and other medical professionals, frauds. Oh, wait:

There can be little doubt from the materialist don’t pretend to speak for the rest of us.

Yes, yes you are. In the meantime, your statement amounts to a brush-off. Do you have anything else in the way of rebuttals or was dismissal all, for now?