You’re not. I, too hate websites that make you sign up for an account before they let you view information.
Oh, bugger.
Well, here’s the text: sorry it’s so long; AP wire report
Filed at 1:40 p.m. EDT
By The Associated Press
CLIFTON, Colo. (AP) – The last breath of infant Billy Ray Reed came much the same as the first – in his parents’ trailer with church members surrounding him.
Without ever seeing a doctor, the 2-day-old boy died July 9 of complications from a hole in his heart.
According to the coroner’s report, Billy Ray’s parents noticed that he was having trouble ,breathing and that he was turning blue. But they considered him fussy and thought he was getting better after they prayed for him, the coroner said.
Remainder of article deleted by the Moderator.
Moderator’s Notes: This is an AP wire report and as such it is copyrighted information. From the bottom of the page linked above:
The copyrighted article previously pasted below has been deleted by UncleBeer. My suggestion to you, is that, in the future, you make your own summary of articles such as this. C&P’ing small portions to illustrate your own points is acceptable under Fair Use laws; republishing through the means you used is not.
As you might suspect, The Chicago Reader is a staunch supporter of the Fair Use laws and copyright protections in general. Please do not do this again. Thank you, UncleBeer.
[Edited by UncleBeer on 08-09-2000 at 10:12 AM]
It’s sad, but I believe well within their religious rights. We allow all kinds of stupidity in the name of religion, why should this be different? If they believe that these kids go to a heavenly paradise when they die, who are we to disagree?
Well, yeah, but in a country where abortion is protested vigorously, isn’t it a bit strange that people don’t mind babies dying essentially of neglect?
I mean, if a mother leaves her baby of the steps of a church, she’s considered a criminal.
It’s just the double standard that really bothers me.
I agree with Danalan, it is sad and distrubing yes. But it is within their rights. And I don’t quite see the double standard here. I don’t think these parents are intentionally neglecting their children. They simply have a different set of beliefs. They lost a loved one. The thought of now condemning them murderers sounds as off as the OP.
Religion is not logical. It’s designed to satisfy emotional (spiritual) longings, not to make sense. I’m sure that the people most scandalized by the death of these children are the same people who are most unreasonably against abortion. The members of this (wacky) church would be against abortion because it’s a medical procedure, and not from the King James bible, rather than claiming a fetus is a child.
Yea, right. People don’t mind babies dying of neglect. It’s no big deal. :rolleyes:
To suggest that abortion is the sensible alternative to babies dying of neglect is ridiculous. (One could argue that this is a double standard) One does not justify or contradict the need for the other. Nobody I know, pro-life or pro-choice, would hear this story and “NOT MIND”.
Many pro-life people are trying to make the “baby on the steps” thing legal. Your suggestion that this is a double standard by pro-lifers is uninformed.
-Katy
But then, if my religion included such things as animal sacrifice or self-mutilation, would that be protected under the Constitution in the same way that substituting prayer for medical treatment is protected?
Okay, re-reading my earlier posts, I’ve decided that my abortion parallel was pretty far off.
Can I take it back?
I call this type of behavior “Murder”. There is also that commandment that tell us not to kill/murder.
Of Course you can take it back. I wasn’t up to another abortion discussion anyway, and I was starting to worry.
Thanks! 
:::kiss kiss::::
-Katy
**blessedwolf **asked: if my religion included such things as animal sacrifice or self-mutilation, would that be protected under the Constitution in the same way that substituting prayer for medical treatment is protected?
Yes blessedwolf, and it is. Animal sacrifice are performed by the believers of Santeria (Cuban in origin) and Voodoo (Haiti). I believe both have been vigorously fought for by the ACLU.
There are also many records of religious self-mutilation in our country. Everything from the Sun Dance (Native American), self-flaggelation (mostly in the Philippines but not unseen in the US).
They just recently passed a law here in Michigan where if you leave your newborn baby at a hospital or clinic, they will not prosecute you for child abandonment.
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/isapi/nls_ax.dll/BillSearch
(I hope this link works)
Oops. If you click that link above, it takes you to a search engine. Type in bill #5543 to get the info on this particular law.
Such a hornets nest we stir up when we try to define what is right, wrong, legal, ethical … moral. We can never come up with a universal set of codes, rules or laws because there are too many of us with varied beliefs and ways of thinking.
I see no set of laws in place in either religion or governmental law which states we HAVE to avail ourselves of every medical procedure, treatment or drug. Did this family hurt you? Do you feel threatened by their actions? Do you feel your children are in danger by what they’ve done? No? Then you have no right to say what they can or cannot do. Sorry, but I feel very strongly about this. Parents are the guardians of their children but it is the parents alone who decide for their children. The line between when it is this and when it crossed into abuse is so unclear it is dangerous to throw an all encompassing blanket of laws over it. Each event needs to be taken seperatly and decided on it’s own merits.
I don’t like it when people claim this or that based on religious rights and freedom, I’ve no belief in god or an after-life and using a religion to do ones thinking is a cop-out to avoid consequences for actions. ‘The bible says this and that and so I have no choice.’ Bull. We can even choose what religion we practice so as to be sure to get one taylor suited to our wants and desires. These parents made choices for whatever reason and a chlld died. If there is a god, they will be judged accordingly; if not, they’re fellow Terrins doing the best they can. Even if they are hiding from life behind the door of religion.
Governmental laws are to protect the whole … are we, as a whole, endangered? No. These people are not going to come after your kids. We all make choices that may result in the death of our child: letting them take their bike out and they get hit by a car, allowing them to go on a field trip and the bus crashes, sending them to grandmas for a summer visit and the plane crashes. Death happens. It’s tragic. Since I don’t believe in god I find what the parents did to be weak-minded and stupid, but I’m not willing to push this over into a criminal case because they, like me, should be allowed to choose.
I will one day face a choice as difficult as this one and would like to know it is still mine to make.
To answer what someone above said, NO, this is NOT legal.
It is neglect and unless someone goes to the Supreme Court and says that pressing charges is unconstitutional as a threat to freedom of religious expression, the jurisdiction is well within its rights (opinion: and within it’s DUTY) to prosecute them just as they would someone who hit a child too hard and inadvertantly killed said child.
I believe that precedent shows that this would not happen, and if the jurisdiction chooses to not press charges, they are not doing their job.
I agree this needs to be in GD.
And perhaps I am mistaken but I believe in most states the jurisdiction is such that it is legal. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can’t penalize you because of your religious beliefs.
By the way blessedwolf, I’m extremely bothered by this too. I’m not trying to defend the actions of this cult. I would hope that Child Protective Services could take these children away from their obviously looney parents, so the child could get proper medical treatment. It qualifies as neglect in my eyes.
I guess that tolerance of the religious beliefs of others cuts all ways. . .
When a newborn baby is turning blue and gasping for breath, to not take that baby to the hospital and let it die, for whatever reason, is neglegent homicide, plain and simple. Freedom of religion never justifies homicide. No, the victim wasn’t myself, or a family member. Then again, neither was a family member a victim of any other murder, and those still need to be prosecuted.