A church in Oregon has the infamous reputation of killing children in the name of faith. Now, two parents — Jeff and Marci Beagley — have been found guilty of negligent homicide. Their case was discussed in this prior column. It is a welcomed charge (often religious parents are given lesser charges in the death of their children due to faith-healing), but the likely sentence is likely to be relatively low given the history of this church and the loss of life.
They will face only 16-18 months in the death of their sixteen-year-old Neil who died from a urinary tract blockage that could have been easily addressed by doctors. I have argued that faith-healing parents are being given special and lenient treatment over other neglectful parents, here.
The Followers of Christ church rejects conventional medicine in favor of faith-healing.
30%er,
Go back to the immediately and get you meds adjusted. You appear to be out of Happy Pills.
When you can put aside the kiddy talk, and the giggling like a schoolgirl with your sock puppet associates, and find the wherewithal to answer the rest of that simple question, you let me know.
Simple explain to me in simple, easy to understand terms.
Because remember I’m not smart like you.
So just explain to me in layman’s terms, just a sentence or two, explain to me why the religion clause of the Constitution DOES NOT give me the right to deny my kids foods, but DOES give me the right to deny them medical treatment.
I’ll be waiting for your brief, dummed down for me answer.
Proving that if you are an attorney, you aren’t a very good one.
He’s not he just plays one on TV
The SCOTUS agreed with me.
they can be wrong you know, just look at their most recent decision.
Now that you’ve answered my question. From which section from the cow will it be coming from.
So we see, this so called “attorney”, when debating his position and in seeing it crumble, dodges for over a day a simple yes or no question.
Because he knows the answer dissolves his own argument.
If the Constitution doesn’t give me the right to deny my kids food for religious reasons, then obviously it doesn’t give me the right to deny them medical treatment either.
Period.
There’s no gray area. No ambiguity.
The SCOTUS agreed with me.
So have most people here.
So in light of that, you’re now attempting to conceal the fact that your position was proven untenable by launching a series of personal attacks, aided apparently by a few sock puppets.
Rather than talk the issues you prefer to talk trash.
Proving that if you are an attorney, you aren’t a very good one.
ECookie,
You have never looked better than with the sock puppet. Did you see my Hero last week on 2.5 men? When Alan was being a Ventriloquist?
The the last of the show you see the dummy flying…..
30%er,
I can still have my beliefs can’t I? I still think the courts are wrong. How about interracial marriages. No need to answer. They have been upheld as being illegal. How about savant castration? They have been upheld as legal. Then the Sct came down and said. NO,NO,NO. Were they right then or are they right now? That is what I am saying. The current state of the law….
Sockpuppet? Did somebody mention sockpuppets?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-Z0ZsYMUs4&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
And by the way, although Buddha popped in to attack me for “your” position, (odd, huh?) , he happened to point out that you were wrong as well.
As did mespo.
Both said you were wrong.
“mespo answered you. I answered you. Buddha answered you. Then you want to do a Groundhogs routine with me and I am not bill murrary collecting residuals. ” – Anonymously Yours
Utterly false.
You’re further trying to gray the issue and turn it into a personal attack on me.
You never answered my question until just now when you finally said “no”.
You said “no” to the question of whether or not the Constitution permits me to deny my kid food on religious freedom.
So you agree with me that that is not something permitted.
Yet you claim it DOES give me the right to deny them medical treatment.
And now I’m helping you weave through your own bullsh$t, in order to explain why.
Still waiting for the adults to come back.
mespo answered you. I answered you. Buddha answered you. Then you want to do a Groundhogs routine with me and I am not bill murrary collecting residuals.
Smoked brisket BBQ. Using only the finest Texas Pecan and split hickory wood for the smoking. So to answer your question Beef, thats whats for dinner.
AY it’s a very simple question please don’t make me wait another minute. Now are you or aren’t you.
AY I will ask you again what is for dinner tonight.
Are you going out for it yes or no answer my question
I’ll be waiting for the “Lawyer” here to explain to me why its ok to deny my kids medical care but not food.
Its a simple question.
A simple question that crumbles his morally bankrupt position just by the asking.
30%er,
Groundhogs day was two day ago. If you want to watch it. Get net flick. or go to block buster….
“Give 30%er back his pipe so he can go smoke some peaceful medicine. Maybe even eat a little magi cactus to boot. Then he’ll be back looking for the boot.” -Anonymously Yours
Projecting your own apparent vices onto me does answer the question or clarify your position.
Simple insults without substance prove nothing but your own awareness of how untenable your position is.
If my kid has a urinary blockage and needs medical treatment, and I deny him that treatment, why is that different than denying him food?
The laws of the land say its illegal to deny children proper medical care. Most states will remove a child from the home if the parents do not give them proper medical care.
Yet you claim that if its for religious reasons, then the Constitution protects that.
So please explain why you think it gives them the right to deny medical care, but not food.
So AY whats for dinner