If a religious beleif infringes on your rights as a person, is it right to stop that religion? At what point does it become an infringement? Can you tell somebody to stop acting on their beliefs and inforce it?
I don’t beleive that you can, but it apears that some people feel that you can. I would like to see why they feel this way.
As this is my first thread, feel free to set me up and push me down…
Um, could you give an example of how a religious belief might infringe on your rights?
perhaps if it was my religion that all people that didn’t put down their locations for the board should be excluded from breathing the same oxygen/nitrogen mixture as I, would that not be an unfringement upon your right to breath at whatever altitude you want to?
I don’t see how a religious belief can infringe on anyone’s rights as a person. On the other hand, even sincerely held religious beliefs (or beliefs about religion) don’t confer a right to take actions which infringe on the rights of others, either by passing laws or by extra-legal means.
Basically what MEBuckner said. You have the right to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t affect me. If you believe that all women should wear a veil, eh, good for you. I may think you’re a jerk, but it’s your right to believe what you want. If, however, you try to MAKE some chick wear a veil, then you are stepping on their rights and are in need of a smack.
When I was in the hospital a couple of weeks ago, the next bed in the admitting room contained a Jehovah’s Witness, and I listened to the nurse patiently explaining to him that “I understand you will not take blood transfusions, so I need you to sign this form saying that your family won’t be cross with us if you die during surgery.”
Admittedly, that might be looked upon as Darwinism in action, but it must be awfully frustrating for the medical staff, who is trying to save this guy’s life . . .
I’ve always held the position that one person’s religious freedom ends where another person’s body begins. In other words, you have the right to try to preach at me, but you don’t have the right to force me to listen, and I have the right to walk away.
If it’s a matter of coming to my door, then that’s where your rights end, because it’s my door and I have the right to tell you to leave.
An even bigger problem is with parents who will risk their child’s life in the name of faith. Eve’s story would have been a lot different had it been a child whose parents were denying her the blood transfusions. In a case like that I would side with any medical professional and any court that decided to put the child’s health before the parent’s religion. After all, the child needs a chance to grow up and decide if he agrees with her parents beliefs or not.
Those weren’t spelling errors either. I just decided to flip genders back and forth rather than do the whole he/she thing every time. 
Hmm. Perhaps I’ve watched too much B5, but is there legal precedent for children of JWs having blood ‘forced’ upon them?
Well, here’s a case where it appears a court ordered a girl to have treatment for cancer even after she and her parents chose not to do so on religious grounds.
Having seen only a couple episodes of B5, what does it have to do with stated personal rights?
In the latest direction, how is it decided when a child is old enough to choose for him/her self? In America a person is a minor until they reach 18, but as a teener I can comprehend the workings of the world decently enough to decide wether something is or isn’t against my beleifs, and how to handle it if I don’t.
Have there been any credible tests concerning when a child is able to deal with reality at a degree similar to an adult? Results?
My God told me that I am supposed to kill LuthAeron. My bible is pretty clear about it. I hope the police don’t stand in the way of my religious beliefs.
(note: I don’t *really *believe I’m supposed to kill anyone)
photopat: it’s long been accepted law that if YOU want to refuse medical treatment, that’s your right, but you do not have the right to make a martyr of someone else - let alone your minor child. If the child needs medical care to save his/her life, and the parent doesn’t “believe” in medical care, tough shit. The child will be taken away from the idiot parents and given proper, life-saving care. And rightfully so. As much as we pretend to love and respect religion, when the choice is respecting a religious belief or saving a life, religion goes right out the window. Even when a religious belief conflicts with a non-lethal legal principle (like my sacred belief that paying federal income taxes is a sin that will send me to hell for all eternity), the law always prevails. Of course, it must be noted that the majority religion (i.e. non-mormon christians) tends to make the laws…
As a side note, from a purely ultra-pragmatic standpoint, maybe they should just let the child die by withholding necessary treatment on the religious whim of the parents. Chances are that child will grow up to be a religious nutcase (due to the brainwashing of its parents), and the world is best off without such people. So, it’s really a balancing test… saving a human life on the one hand, and improving the quality and intelligence of the human race on the other. Am I saying that all religious people who believe so strongly in the refusal of lifesaving medical treatment as to withhold it from their dying child are idiots? Abso-fuckin-lutely. There’s nothing subjective or debate-worthy about it. They’re per se idiots who are better off dead. It’s just a shame that so many of them piss in the gene pool before they get a terminal condition, refuse treatment, and die. In the very least, if a person believes that no member of their family should have medical care, they should be sterilized before reproduction occurs. Oh wait, that’s a medical procedure. They really won’t like that! Even better 
There’s an episode of B5, season one, in which an alien family won’t let the doctor operate to save their child’s life, due to their religious beliefs. Forget the name.
Since according to the law you’re not considered to be able to make valid decisions concerning yourself about less important matters (say, consenting to have sex, or choosing the place where you want to live), it makes sense to assume that you’re not able to make valid choices in life or death situations, either.
Of course, I know nothing about US laws concerning the issues refered to in this thread, but the reasoning seems logical to me.
Laws and their applications will vary from state to state and country to country. The following excerpts are from the Physician Law Review of the Sullivan Group.
“Unless a minor is emancipated, a “mature minor”, or has one of the special conditions covered by the treatment statutes, he or she is not cognitively or legally capable of giving or refusing consent for medical treatment. . . . .
In those jurisdictions that recognize the mature minor, the minor has the same right as a competent adult to refuse life sustaining treatment. In the case of In Re E.G., 549 N.E. 2d 322 (IL 1989) a seventeen year old leukemic Jehovah witness was permitted to refuse life-saving transfusion. However, not all jurisdictions recognize the mature minor doctrine.”
So, (if I understand this correctly) if a minor could convince a judge that he was mature enough to understand the consequences of refusing medical treatment, he could refuse treatment for religious reasons.
The girl in that case was 17, which is a borderline minor. The court stated, “If the evidence is clear and convincing that the minor is mature enough to appreciate the consequences of her actions, and that the minor is mature enough to exercise the judgment of an adult, then the mature minor doctrine affords her the common law right to consent to or refuse medical treatment.”
This was not a case of the parent deciding to withhold treatment, the child - a borderline minor - “really wanted” to refuse treatment. So the court said “fine.” This is purely a case of death by religion. Anyone who says religion doesn’t kill is gravely mistaken.
Now, in reality, it was the parents’ decision, because they brainwashed their child into beliving this jehova witness crap. If you’re told your entire life that medical treatment (even to save your life) is a sin that will send you to hell, and if the brainwashers do a competent job, then of course after 17 years of such brainwashing the kid is going to honestly want to refuse treatment, and will be able to pursuade the court (which used a heightened “clear and convincing” burden of proof on this issue) that she understands the consequences of her actions. She doesn’t want to go to hell, and the “Knows” that accepting medical treatment will send her there when she eventually dies.
While most courts don’t use the “Mature Minor” principle, I think it’s a great idea. It will result in less religious fanatics reproducing, as the “mature minors” will most likely die (from their own refusal of medical care) before they reproduce. It’s a good balancing between saving the lives of children of religious fanatics versus weeding out religious fanatics from the human race.
Cold. Very, VERY cold.
Pragmatic. Very, VERY pragmatic.
Cool. Very, VERY cool. I have a new argument now.
Jehovas don’t allow serious medical treatment. Blood transfusions and what not.
OK, I’ve got a complicated example. I’m a little sketchy on exact dates of the various times this case has been to court, but this is the sequence I remember.
My hometown has a great big statue of Jesus standing on the globe that you drive past everytime you come into town. I’ve never measured it, but Jesus on the Ball, as we used to call him, is roughly 8’ tall. I am not objective on this issue, since I see Jesus on the Ball as part of my childhood and not a religious icon.
A local man, an atheist who claims to be a survivor of sexual abuse by a priest, wanted the statue removed. The Freedom from Religion Organization backed him with lawyer money, so the case was headed to court. The statue was on city owned land, so the city was going to lose.
So the city allowed a private organization (Knight’s of Columbus or some such) to purchase the land the statue was standing on. This is a little semicircle, surrounded by driveway, which is across the street from the biggest park in town. The city thought they’d solved the problem.
The man took the case back to court, claiming it was a sweetheart deal, and he wasn’t given the chance to bid, buy and tear the thing down. He lost.
The man took the case back to court, claiming that since it was across the street from a public park, it still appeared to be public land and gave the impression of violating church and state. The judge aggreed and required the owners to build a fence and add a sign which said it was private property.
They built a fence, approx 4-5’ wrought iron, and added a sign.
The case went back to court one more time, because the sign was too small, and you could see through the fence. The plaintiff wanted something much taller, and brick to obscure the statue from the road. He lost on the fence, but the private property sign is now about 3’ by 5’.
I sympathize with this guy’s pain, and hope he receives help and redress for any past trauma caused by the church, but I don’t think he should be allowed to legislate the view from what is offically someone else’s private property.
Or else, I should be allowed to sue McDonald’s to take down the Golden Arches, since they tempt me to gluttony. Fair’s fair.