Parents let girl die of untreated diabetes - Choose prayer instead

[04SCTLS]

WAUSAU, Wis. (AP) -- Authorities say a frantic 911 call to the Marathon County Sheriff's Department from the home of an 11-year-old Weston girl who died from untreated diabetes was made by friends of the girl's parents.
Captain Scott Sleeter of the Everest Metro Police Department says Randall and Althea Wormgoor each spoke to a dispatcher Sunday as chaos and cries could be heard in the background at the Dale and Leilani Neumann home in rural Weston.
if (self['plpm'] && plpm['Mid-Story Ad']) document.write('');if (self['plpm'] && plpm['Mid-Story Ad']){ document.write(plpm['Mid-Story Ad']);} else { if(self['plurp'] && plurp['97']){} else {document.write(''); } }if (self['plpm'] && plpm['Mid-Story Ad']) document.write('');Madeline Neumann died that day from an undiagnosed and treatable form of diabetes. Her parents prayed for her to get better. Her mother, Leilani Neumann, says she never expected her daughter to die.
Mrs. Neumann says the family believes in the Bible, and it says healing comes from God.

 

[fossten]

Christian Scientists.

 

[04SCTLS]

Christian Scientists.

Is that an oxymoron?
No just kidding,
but obviously they weren't being very scientific and should face some kind of charges but in this country there will be a sympathetic judge who will excuse culpability on religious grounds.
Oh, they've suffered enough and it was God's will....

 

[fossten]

Is that an oxymoron?
No just kidding,
but obviously they weren't being very scientific and should face some kind of charges but in this country there will be a sympathetic judge who will excuse culpability on religious grounds.
Oh, they've suffered enough and it was God's will....

Actually there's court case precedent for this.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFDE1F38F932A25752C1A96E948260

 

[shagdrum]

Holy Sh!t, 04SCTLS, yer still alive!

This would fall under the "free exercise" clause of the 1st amendment, but I imagine it would be beyond the limits of the freedom.

Similar to the decision in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith

 

[04SCTLS]

Yes shagdrum, I'm still here.
Not much of interest (to me) to post on in the last few weeks.
Been busy with work and my Wings West kit for the LS. (see pic) Got the front airdam done and the rest should have completed in about a week.
Had to do some mods to make it fit but as a former bodyman this is something I enjoy doing as CFO stuff can get a bit dry.
Just watching you guys masochistically duking it out with the frustratingly cryptic "Mick Jagger" about the constitution.
Obviously an intellegent mind but too much brevity to be entertaining and/or enlightening or informative.
Seems like a 1000 word essay is required here to make a case that might refute your guys contention that the US was founded as a Christian nation.

 

[fossten]

refute your guys contention that the US was founded as a Christian nation.

Good luck with all that.

 

[04SCTLS]

Actually there's court case precedent for this.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFDE1F38F932A25752C1A96E948260

The California Court stated that while the United States and California constitutions protected religious belief absolutely, both allowed restriction of religiously motivated conduct for sufficiently grave social reasons such as protecting a child's life.
''Parents have no right to free exercise of religion at the price of a child's life,'' the court said. The court did not challenge the sincerity of Ms. Walker's belief but said that the case ''turns not on defendant's subjective intent to heal her daughter but on the objective reasonableness of her course of conduct.''
The court cited rulings by the United States Supreme Court permitting parents' religious beliefs to be overruled in matters of less serious risk to children, such as compulsory vaccination laws and limits on child labor.
_____________________________________________
So here the verdict here is that common sense in using modern medicine overules religious beliefs if a childs life is at stake.

 

[04SCTLS]

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

refute your guys contention that the US was founded as a Christian nation.

Good luck with all that.

Well that's not my argument to make...

Mick came on this board to post about the Constitution and it's construction on the premise (I suppose) it wasn't based on the laws of the Bible and that religion had very limited influence on the founding of a country based on principals instead of ethnicity class or religion as was the case in feudal European countries.

I'm not a student scholor so I'm not going to try and make a thesis here.

 

[shagdrum]

Been busy with work and my Wings West kit for the LS. (see pic) Got the front airdam done and the rest should have completed in about a week.

Looks good!!

Just watching you guys masochistically duking it out with the frustratingly cryptic "Mick Jagger" about the constitution.

That is probably the best way to put it...

Obviously an intellegent mind but too much brevity to be entertaining and/or enlightening or informative.

I originally thought that (outside of all the "dude" comments), but I am questioning that. Not so sure of the intellegent thing...it seems more and more like he is here simply to rock the boat, and is too brief and cryptic to add much to any debate.

...I'm not a fan of the 'Stone's either.

 

[shagdrum]

The California Court stated that while the United States and California constitutions protected religious belief absolutely, both allowed restriction of religiously motivated conduct for sufficiently grave social reasons such as protecting a child's life.
''Parents have no right to free exercise of religion at the price of a child's life,'' the court said. The court did not challenge the sincerity of Ms. Walker's belief but said that the case ''turns not on defendant's subjective intent to heal her daughter but on the objective reasonableness of her course of conduct.''
The court cited rulings by the United States Supreme Court permitting parents' religious beliefs to be overruled in matters of less serious risk to children, such as compulsory vaccination laws and limits on child labor.
_____________________________________________
So here the verdict here is that common sense in using modern medicine overules religious beliefs if a childs life is at stake.

The Supreme Court upheld a similar idea in the case I cited. Basically, religious freedom doesn't extend to breaking the law (or in this case, endangering someone). Both instances spell out the limits of the free exercise clause.

 

[shagdrum]

Mick came on this board to post about the Constitution and it's construction on the premise (I suppose) it wasn't based on the laws of the Bible and that religion had very limited influence on the founding of a country based on principals instead of ethnicity class or religion as was the case in feudal European countries.

Yeah, I'm not even totally sure on what he is trying to argue, or what his thesis is (and I like to consider myself well versed in this area of the constitution). He seems to be mostly just questioning, and trying to poke holes in an arguement (sometimes not even the arguement he is responding too). It keeps him on the offensive and us on the defensive, which is a good rhetorical tactic to take, but still ultimately lacks substance. Not an overly honest method of debate, IMO

 

[fossten]

Yeah, I'm not even totally sure on what he is trying to argue, or what his thesis is (and I like to consider myself well versed in this area of the constitution). He seems to be mostly just questioning, and trying to poke holes in an arguement (sometimes not even the arguement he is responding too). It keeps him on the offensive and us on the defensive, which is a good rhetorical tactic to take, but still ultimately lacks substance. Not an overly honest method of debate, IMO

You forgot to mention his blatant trolling.