“Today, the Old Peculiars are largely gone…”

That’s only because it’s such good beer
http://www.theakstons.co.uk/ales/classics/oldpeculier.html

Wall Street co-opted early H1N1 vaccines for its employees. The CDC suggests that all children over 6 months of age are at risk and should be vaccinated against H1N1. The supply of vaccine is limited. Last week the CDC announced an uptick in the deaths of unvaccinated American children from Swine Flu. So far, there are no reports of Swine Flu deaths on Wall Street.

Perhaps interfering between some adults and children when a child’s health is at risk would be helpful. Why limit the interference to just religion?

From your post:

“Then there are the parents of Alex Washburn. The 22-month-old died after hitting his head at home in Cross Lanes, W.Va. His parents, Elizabeth Dawn Thornton and Christopher Steven Washburn, said the boy fell a lot and hit his head on the corner of a table and his chin on a toilet. They apologized for not seeking medical help and agreed to terminate their parental rights to their other children, handing over custody to the state.”

************

That sends up a red flag to me. Could it be that little Alex was an abused child and that Washburn and Thornton didn’t take him to a doctor who might have gotten suspicious about the child’s injuries?

I’m a former teacher and my daughter is a licensed social worker. We live in Massachusetts. In our state, doctors, teachers, social workers, and many other professionals are required by law to file a 51A and report any kind of suspected abuse and/or neglect of children they come in contact with to the Dept. of Social Services. I would assume this would probably be required in many other/most states as well.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/119-51a.htm

There are a few reasons why these religious parents do not tend to have criminal backgrounds. They tend not to drink heavily. They are sexually conservative. They frequently spurn materialism. These factors lead away from a criminal lifestyle.

I also take issue with this article’s interpretation of the vegan case. It sounds like the court doubted the sincerity of the vegan claims in the first place. He said as much when he said, “They’re not vegans . . .”

Mespo and Buddha, your comments as always are worthwhile reading.

Mespo: “The issue here is the institutional ignorance of some religions in denying the obvious progress of science.”

Buddha: “If one bases decisions based upon belief, it is a recipe for disaster.”

I would be interested to know whether their religious beliefs would have allowed them to seek medical attention if their child’s critical condition had been caused by a more directly obvious and observable event like MVA, GSW, stabbing, fall or some other accident or trauma. (Although I seriously doubt they would call 911 for a lightening strike!)

These tragic deaths are heartbreaking and show a complete lack of respect and reverence for the very fragility and gift of each individual’s life.

I don’t know what this says about me, but I have as little tolerance for these religious groups’ behavior as I do for the bystanders (gang members) who stood by, watched and cheered while a young girl was beaten and raped (Richmond) or a young boy beaten and killed(Chicago).

Again, maybe it just me (and probably a stretch) but I see gross similarities in these groups; sociopaths with a weird narcissism, true believers with a warped world view, the use of group think etc. and likewise (actually more so as they were adults), I wish to see the religious participants, who sat bedside in a prayer circle, prosecuted for aiding and abetting!

***********

Remove ‘em and you have a pretty good definition of Darfur or Somalia, and on and on.

I’m going to place my bets that Reason and The Rule of Law are the only two things keeping us from totally self-destructing as a species. Not only are they critical, they are inexorably intertwined. The Rule of Law has no value when not rooted in the soil of Reason as it is a fiction – a reflection of belief instead of testable verifiable reality. If one bases decisions based upon belief, it is a recipe for disaster. Gravity is the most democratic force in the universe. But Mr. Rev. Right Hr. Fr. Billy Bob Mohesh Mohamed Jesus Leisure Suit tells me that God says gravity is a lie and Newton was a “disagreeable panty waist”. If I choose to believe him and walk off a cliff despite the evidence that not only does gravity exist, but it sucks and is most certainly not my friend? Well that’s the price of making decisions based on belief versus fact: Natural Selection will get you. If one examines action, cause and effect and relegates belief to it’s proper (and lesser) place as a component of motive, the analysis becomes easier. Religion can never be an excuse accepted for causing harm to another. If so, then the door is open for any belief, rational or not, to become an excuse. And at that point, reason goes on vacation.

Thank you. are you a front man for Professor Turley? Seems like a good match.

The only question I have is, where will interference end in a house where religion is paramount to a person?

“Submit your questions and comments before or during today’s discussion.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/11/13/DI2009111303161.html

As of 9:26 AM, there were 64 comments at the Washington Post website, with more coming in all the time:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111302220_Comments.html

Are the cases really that hard when you remove the soft focus of emotion?
*****************

I guess you are correct in this regards. However, where is the line draws, such as the gentleman in the above matter where he was convicted of possession of a firearm. Strict Liability. The rights are slowly obstructed and then you have none. My simple example is the seat-belt law. Now even adult passengers in the back seat are required to wear a seat belt. Public safety? I think not. Where is the seat belt on a bus, commercial or school? A motorcycle? What about MADD and drunk driving. Did this not become a champion for the courts to raise revenue. I agree that driving drunk is a bad ideal but come on. Statistics show a hung over driver is worse than a slightly impaired one. What about use of Marijuana 23 days before. THC stays in the system and the can be charged and convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Illegal Narcotics. Is this not a stretch?

When we give deference to foolish ideas, should we expect anything less than foolish (and sometimes tragic) consequences? It may be presumptuous or even arrogant to judge another’s beliefs, but experience teaches us to do it every day. Would you board a bus if the driver greeted you with,”Today, I am going to heaven, as the Apocalypse is upon us.” Ride on, oh whack job would most certainly be your conclusion. Arrogant and presumptuous maybe, but infinitely reasonable. It is the duty of the law to remain reason-based, and not serve as a bastion of ignorance, emotion, and superstition that kills the innocent under the banner of individual rights. Are the cases really that hard when you remove the soft focus of emotion?

I surely don’t condone child abuse by any stretch of the imagination but should the parents, guardians, caregivers suffer such indignation of our imagination? These are clearly controversial cases that should make someone take a double take.

Are we not utilizing “religious freedoms” as our excuses to invade many country’s? The Kurds case in point. Or were they a convient justification for interference?

When you think about these things, there are no easy decisions. If you live by the bible you should hasten your judgment for anyone. Is this not what we have been taught? Or do we selectively pick and choose what we believe?

You either have to take it all or leave it all behind you. As Mike S., has said on another post. Each person has to decide what is right for them. The Rabbi is just a communicator of ideals. Maybe I am taking what he said out of context but I think this is what was meant. If I am wrong I will certainly say so.

The are hard cases making decisions hard, at least for me.

Suffer the little children, indeed.