The problem is that a doctor killing someone ‘negligently, accidentally, forgetting to do such and such, not recommending a treatment such and such’ is so common it’s not news. Religions stuff is news and gets too much emotional power behind it, and then it gets used to mess with rights.

Yeah, religions are doctrinally stupid. As communities, as cultures that are not government based, they’re sometimes the only thing that gets between people and the government.

Could you imagine what would happen if the Catholic Church told the US government ‘stop taking knitting needles from old ladies, nail clippers from guys on business trips, and patting down little five year old girls who tell you ‘stop touching me!’ when dealing with airline safety?

Religion is stupid, but governments have armies behind them. Which is also why you don’t want a religion running your government, but having both lets them take it out on each other, not you.

As for excusing it because they weren’t being intentional, gimme a break. Do you apply that same standard to a crack addict whose baby gets out and wanders into the street because she’s high and gets hit by a car? I bet not. Double standard, same difference. People driving drunk get charged with killing other peoples kids all the time. They didn’t intend to hit anyone either. Etc., etc., etc.

Life in prision. Let them suffer and endure and be martyrs for their god and waste their lives waiting for pie in the sky when they die. I hate to sound like a savage American here but I hope to hell they get the worse we all imagine prison to be. They fucking deserve it if anybody ever did. Maybe that’s what god has planned for them. And maybe we Americans have an unhealthy zeal for that kind of vengence because the law doesn’t adequately punish the real bastards. Unfortunately, I don’t think the image that prisioners go after child molesters/killers is anything other than an urban legend and wishful thinking.

And, no, I don’t think they’re being eat up with guilt. Please. Watch that video tape again. They didn’t start crying until the sentence was handed down.

I don’t know if the judge gave them the maximum possible in their area or not but I’m glad he chided them in court for taking religion too far.

I’m just talking about what should be the government’s responsibility, not the individual’s responsibility. We need to hold ourselves responsible even when intentions are good and we need to educate people who mean well but are ignorant.
…
I’m assuming that these people weren’t convinced by the science and the doctors. If they were convinced but refused treatment anyway, then I agree that more jail time would be warranted.
…
The law should mostly be reserved for punishing people who don’t mean well and in cases like this, stepping in before the death occurs to prevent the death and get the children to a safe place.

Okay. Three things.

1. It is the government’s responsibility to define the laws and punish people accordingly. Ignorance is never an excuse for the death of your child. “I didn’t know he would die” is meaningless. They should’ve known. As adults, as parents, there are responsibilities that our society expects them to assume. If they don’t, and a child dies, their intentions are utterly irrelevant. Were this flat-out murder – that is, if they were totally oblivious to the idea that we frown upon directly killing children, and they killed their child as part of a ritualistic sacrifice – their ignorance would not be an excuse. It should not be one here, either.

2. Jail time should not be based on whether someone believes evidence or not. Otherwise, it could just as easily work the other way. A nation of religious zealots could imprison an atheist for refusing to observe some practice that the zealots believed prevented a curse from being put on their nation. The evidence alone, regardless of personal prejudice or acceptance, is what should be judged. People should not be let off easily because of their delusions. You would not see this kind of leniency for anything but religious reasons.

3. If the law were only reserved for punishing people who didn’t mean well, we would have no laws against actions that cause unintentional harm.

@Mike the infidel
Perhaps I should have said “It doesn’t fit most definitions of reckless if they think they are doing the right thing. Most definitions of reckless involve some sort of lack of concern for what is right” And, yes I can say it with a straight face because I think it is true. Its just a definition and I’m not going to pretend its otherwise just because I don’t like all the consequences. As for it justifying “any action taken with good intentions”, such is not my intent . I’m just talking about what should be the government’s responsibility, not the individual’s responsibility. We need to hold ourselves responsible even when intentions are good and we need to educate people who mean well but are ignorant. Perhaps some jail time is the best way to educate them, perhaps it is not. As a father who tells my children to question authority I have to allow them the option to not be convinced by authority. It doesn’t make sense to say, “question authority, but if it turns out they were right, you’re going to fry” I’m assuming that these people weren’t convinced by the science and the doctors. If they were convinced but refused treatment anyway, then I agree that more jail time would be warranted. The law should mostly be reserved for punishing people who don’t mean well and in cases like this, stepping in before the death occurs to prevent the death and get the children to a safe place.

I will never understand the admiration that some Americans have for the crimes perpetrated in their prisons…

It’s disgusting.

It’s disgusting, I agree, but what does being American have to do with it? I’m sure you could find examples of people from other countries who are every bit as vengeful and vindictive. I don’t think we Americans have a corner on that market.

It may be that I’m just not a bloodthirsty type, but I don’t think anyone should be killed or raped or tortured either by fellow prisoners or by the government. It’s barbaric, and a civilized society (which we pretend to be) should strive to be above that sort of behavior. It certainly shouldn’t tolerate it or endorse it. Ironically, prison rape and beatings are officially condemned, but the government is still allowed to kill certain citizens, so I think we have a long way to go on that score.

It isn’t reckless if they think they are doing the right thing.

Can you really say this with a straight face? Honestly? Because it justifies any action taken with good intentions.

Sometimes doctors are wrong. Sometimes doctors treat more aggressively than they should. So there is some judgment required in the case of the treatment of a sick child.

And these people couldn’t possibly make that decision, because they never went to a doctor. Their religious delusions killed their child.

Well I got a deal for you…..Just kill them…..well…if you are a religion freak all will work out fine for you.

Is this what I am doing wrong?

Should I start proclaiming my beliefs, no matter how crazy, and toss the word “god” into the mix, so I can go around and kill off a few folks?

It isn’t reckless if they think they are doing the right thing. Reckless is when they don’t care if they are doing the right thing. Stupid is when they can’t figure out what is the right thing. Some of the definitions of negligence that I saw included the word reckless, but none included stupid.

I think we need to clearly distinguish stupidity from fanaticism and/or insanity, and not allow any of the three to serve as an excuse for the death of a child. These people weren’t just stupid, they were fanatics. If they were merely stupid they would have made unpredictable stupid mistakes that could have led to the harm of their children. There was nothing unpredictable about this. There is a clear bright red line between their religious beliefs and what happened.

I probably agree that refusing to feed a child is criminal negligence because no child ever survived without food. However, sometimes children seem really sick and then recover.

Unless I’m mistaken you are making the argument that it is more “reasonable” to deny a child medical care than to deny a child food. Well, that could be so, within the insanity of both, but I believe it does not relate to this case in two ways. 1. It assumes that the parents look to the observable reality of the world as a way to influence their decision making. I see no evidence of that in this case. 2. What they did went beyond the pale. This boy was writhing in agony and they knew he was not just a little sick. The comparison is not a child with no food vs. a child with a flu, its a child with no food vs. a child in critical condition.

Beyond this argument however I think the point needs to be made that parents cannot dispose of their children as they see fit beyond a certain level of risk. I’m aware that deciding what is too risky is not a clear cut matter, but that doesn’t mean you throw up your hands and decide that parents are allowed to expose their children to anything since you can’t agree on gray-area cases. Parents must understand that they have a legal responsibility to, at minimum, provide basic physical needs for their children. Any parent who demonstrates that they do not understand that, whether it be because they are mentally disabled or crippled by fanatic beliefs of any kind, forfeits their right to be a parent. In extreme cases like this one parents should be sent to jail or to a mental institutions, as applicable.

It isn’t reckless if they think they are doing the right thing. Reckless is when they don’t care if they are doing the right thing. Stupid is when they can’t figure out what is the right thing. Some of the definitions of negligence that I saw included the word reckless, but none included stupid.

I probably agree that refusing to feed a child is criminal negligence because no child ever survived without food. However, sometimes children seem really sick and then recover. Sometimes doctors are wrong. Sometimes doctors treat more aggressively than they should. So there is some judgment required in the case of the treatment of a sick child.

The only thing I’m having a difficult time wrapping my mind around is why you seem so hostile. Discussion is good. Of course I understand that if these people had acted differently they probably would have saved their child. I blame the religion more than the people who weren’t smart enough to ignore the religion.