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.
“Sheesh, speaking of insults and personal attacks… what did I ever do to you? You may recall I agreed with you on this issue when you and AY first started going at it about three months ago (that’s what it feels like anyway)” -empirecookie
Another idiot who just invents lies about me and then proceeds to attack them?
When did I say anything to you recently?
What are you jumping in for?
Oh wait.
I know.
Another sock puppet for AY, right?
And by the way genius.
I never made a blanket statement that the Constitution doesn’t apply to ALL Civil and Criminal proceedings. My comment never used the word “ALL”, thus it was obviously made in the context of the debate I was having.
And it was correct.
Because the SCOTUS ruled that religious freedom does not give one the right to violate criminal laws.
Thus the Constitutional right to freedom of worship is not applicable as a defense in this case, because the SCOTUS has made it clear that religious freedom doesn’t give you the right to commit crimes.
Get your facts straight next time.
“Buddha Is Laughing
30%,
Take criticism much?
Listen, “genius”, when you say something as stupid as the Constitution doesn’t apply to a criminal or civil proceeding in a blanket manner again, I’ll call you babbling again. It applies to ANY proceeding. How is the issue.”
Not when that criticism is founded on a complete lie.
You can’t just walk in and misrepresent my position, then insult me for the position you just completely twisted 180 degrees, and then expect someone to not note your ignorance in doing so.
If you don’t like the response, you might try reading peoples comments prior to stepping into the middle of a day long debate, to insult them.
“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.”
Sheesh, speaking of insults and personal attacks… what did I ever do to you? You may recall I agreed with you on this issue when you and AY first started going at it about three months ago (that’s what it feels like anyway).
Are you familiar with the expression “flogging a dead horse”? Stomping your foot and repeatedly demanding that AY answer your question does not constitute debate and, if you have’t figured it out after posting the same demand 400 times, AY is not going to answer you (at least on your terms).
So stop rising to the bait and just drop it. I suspect he’s having fun. You, on the other hand, are at risk of suffering the same fate as Larry, whose head exploded earlier this afternoon. Wouldn’t want that to happen (or maybe Larry just got smart and left the thread).
(BTW AY, I am not calling you a dead horse, just to be clear!)
wait
Buddah please take the gloves off. You should of seen him and mespo go at it over the gospels while you were moving. I swear I posted that I could not weight for you to get back.
30%,
Take criticism much?
Listen, “genius”, when you say something as stupid as the Constitution doesn’t apply to a criminal or civil proceeding in a blanket manner again, I’ll call you babbling again. It applies to ANY proceeding. How is the issue.
“I will end this in saying this will be the last I respond to you. Period. I think the sct is wrong, you think that they are correct. Some case some day will prove that I am correct” -Anonymously Yours
And fake self righteous “ceding” doesn’t answer the question either. Its simply another dishonest attempt to make yourself appear superior while never actually confronting your own statements.
You run away and in doing so leave a parting shot once more reiterating your untenable position.
You claim “Some case some day will prove that I am correct”.
Now I’m no big legal brain like yourself, but I’m pretty sure most lawyers when in debate usually demand someone validate their position.
And if they are unable to do so, then they usually admit their position is flawed. Isn’t that how “great legal minds” like yours behave?
Running off calling me a big neener neener poo poo and claiming that “some day” history will prove you correct is a tactic used by George W Bush, Dick Cheney as taught to them by Karl Rove.
It is not how intelligent minds behave.
If your position is the least bit tenable, then you should be able to explain it in easy to understand language.
If your position holds any water then it can explain the difference between denying my kids medical care, and denying them food.
If your position were at all credible, then it would explain why child endangerment and protection laws do not cover killing your kids through neglecting medical care, but do cover killing them by neglecting to feed them.
Hey Juan
Mexican Words Of The Day
1. *Cheese*
The teacher told Pepito to use the word cheese in a sentence.
Pepito replies: Rosa likes me, but cheese ugly.
2. *Mushroom*
When all my family get in the car
There’s not mushroom.
3. *Shoulder*
My fren wants 2 become a citizen,
But che didn’t know how to read,
So I, shoulder.
4. * Texas *
When I’m not home,
My fren always Texas me,
Che wonders where I am!
5. *Herpes*
Me and my fren ordered pizza.
I got mine piece
Then che got herpes.
6. *July*
Ju told me ju were going to tha store
But ju went to see sum guy,
July to me! Julyer!
7. *Rectum*
I had 2 cars
But my wife rectum!
8. *Chicken*
I was going to go to the store with my wife
But che said chicken go herself.
9. *Wheelchair*
We only have one enchilada left
But don worry, wheelchair
10. *Chicken* *wing*
My wife plays the lottery so chicken wing.
11. *Harassment*
My wife caught me in bed with another women.
I told her, “Honey, harassment nothen to me.
12. *Bishop*
My wife fell down the stair
So I had to pick the bishop.
13. *Body wash*
I want to go to the club
But no body wash my kids.
14. *Budweiser*
That women has a nice body,
Budweiser face so ugly?
I am here for you ThirtyPercenter. I love your masculine way that you put down that AY feller. You are really smart, I bet you are an Attorney? You know my brother was, before his untimely death. How do I get in contact with you?
When you can put aside the childish nonsense and explain your own conflicting statements, I’ll be here.
yawn, I wat de slept. youse knead de meds mon ahn de sooner de butter. R use juan de peeple dat flung rind de moon? Yuse sew fun knee. Yuse git hi as de hrse? yuse knows me and eyed knows yuse, yuse 30sum ting. yesss
Yesterday you claimed the Constitution gives us the right to deny our children medical care.
This is not true.
I pointed out this is not true.
I challenged you, asking you whether based on that flawed logic, does it also permit me to deny them food.
After a day of dodging the question with an endless tirade of self righteous touchy feeley nonsense, you finally summoned the wherewithal to answer that simple yes or no question.
And you said no.
So now, we have you on record saying that;
1. The Constitution gives me the right to deny my kids medical treatment on religious grounds.
2. The Constitution does not give me the right to deny them food on those same grounds.
So, we’re left with two conflicting positions of yours.
One where its ok to kill your kid through neglect.
And one where its not.
And faced with your own conflicting stories, like the big intelligent lawyer you claim to be, you fold into a tirade of personal insults, juvenile giggling with a known troll and fail to ever address your own conflicting statements.
“See post about ground hog day. Been there done that with you. I think your meds are out of balance and you just need to sit back and relax. Savor the victory.” -Anonymously Yours
So all you do have are tired, juvenile insults?
Is this what Lawyers do?
When their arguments crumble they simply turn to insults?
You made a claim yesterday. I challenged it and rightfully so.
And ever since you’ve been running from that challenge by pretending to be right without ever having to explain why.
Say good night Irene
See post about ground hog day. Been there done that with you. I think your meds are out of balance and you just need to sit back and relax. Savor the victory.
I will end this in saying this will be the last I respond to you. Period. I think the sct is wrong, you think that they are correct. Some case some day will prove that I am correct. But for today, I concede. And for the record you started the attacks. I have not really responded in how I could.
Bdaman,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BeefCutBrisket.svg
“30%er,
Go back to the immediately and get you meds adjusted. You appear to be out of Happy Pills.” -Anonymously Yours
So insults and personal attacks is all you have to defend your position with?
I don’t want to talk about castrating savants. (or want to be near anyone who does:)
I don’t want to talk about what the SCOTUS thinks, or how thy rule.
I want to hear YOUR reasoning, to support your original position that the Constitution allows me to deny my kid medical care on religious grounds.