Is it OK to kill kids if ...

[FluffyMcDeath]

it's done in a religious context and in that context, is believed to be for the childs own good?

Case in point. (http://www.courttv.com/trials/exorcist/exorcist_background_070104_ctv.html)

[odin]

:roflmao: Sorry...but I find it really cynical that such backward people can still live in an 'enlightened' country. What a sad story and a bunch of nutcases. :-(

[the_leander]

"Christian Scientists"... sorry but their science dates back to the 13th century and has absolutely no place in modern society beyond history books.

As for autism, well my best friend has two chidren with a severe form of this disorder, and I know from first hand experience how much of a toll it takes on the family, that this could be confused with a "demonic possesion" is incredulous, and very disturbing to see in modern day society.

I'm sorry to say it, but I personally hope they throw the book at EVERYONE who was in that room with murder, or at the very least manslaughter. Religious protections for this sort of "healing" be damned.

[blobrana]

Feed them to the lions.

[T_Bone]

True, this is unfortunate, but why should this be treated any differently than other accidental deaths caused by negligence? Because it was religious in nature? What if they were wrestling instead of praying and the boy smothered, would it be different?

The boy was accidentally smothered. While the death is tragic, it wasn't caused by the religion, like some deaths that occur when parents knowingly let their children suffer from infection with no antibiotics.

While I can see a slew of charges such as child abuse, negligence, manslaughter, etc being appropriate, I don't see a murder charge being appropriate.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

poor boy

[the_leander]

T_Bone wrote:
True, this is unfortunate, but why should this be treated any differently than other accidental deaths caused by negligence? Because it was religious in nature? What if they were wrestling instead of praying and the boy smothered, would it be different?

The boy was accidentally smothered. While the death is tragic, it wasn't caused by the religion, like some deaths that occur when parents knowingly let their children suffer from infection with no antibiotics.

While I can see a slew of charges such as child abuse, negligence, manslaughter, etc being appropriate, I don't see a murder charge being appropriate.


The reason I see it differently is that they are attempting to use long past their sell by date laws as a get out of jail free card due to "religious grounds".

Sorry but a death is a death.

As a side note, as the article points out the kid was autistic, he would as such would likely not have understood what the hell was happening to him. Imagine being on something like LSD or similar and going through that and you are pretty much where that young lad was.

Perhaps you're right on regarding murder, but I think that entire list of charges you suggested should be thrown at them. This is nothing short of obscene in this day and age.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

yes, religion is NOT a valid argument in court.

[Cyberus]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
yes, religion is NOT a valid argument in court.

Hi Eyso,
Well in UK it seemingly is. I remember a few years back that a rastafarian tried to argue that he should be able to smoke marijuana as it was part of his religion. At one point it looked as if there would be a landmark ruling in his favour, but eventually the judge threw out the case.

One commentator argued, something like, "So a cannibal could argue that he is allowed to kill and eat people because its part of his religion?".

[whabang]

I agree with T-bone; it was not murder. Murder is when someone kills with the intention of killing.

[that_punk_guy]

Can we say for sure that he didn't? How could you not know you were causing harm to the kid? :-?

[whabang]

Can we say for sure that he didn't?
Can we say for sure that he did? "Innocent until proven guilty" applies here, I think.

[bloodline]

T_Bone wrote:
True, this is unfortunate, but why should this be treated any differently than other accidental deaths caused by negligence? Because it was religious in nature? What if they were wrestling instead of praying and the boy smothered, would it be different?

The boy was accidentally smothered. While the death is tragic, it wasn't caused by the religion, like some deaths that occur when parents knowingly let their children suffer from infection with no antibiotics.

While I can see a slew of charges such as child abuse, negligence, manslaughter, etc being appropriate, I don't see a murder charge being appropriate.


The purpose of religion is to kill. This IS a murder. End of story.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

whabang wrote:
I agree with T-bone; it was not murder. Murder is when someone kills with the intention of killing.
The evidence shows murder. They have to prove their intentions (wich is impossible because their intentions were based on belief, and this part of belief can't be proven)

[whabang]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
The evidence shows murder. They have to prove their intentions (wich is impossible because their intentions were based on belief, and this part of belief can't be proven)
No, the evidence shows how the boy was killed; not why.
It is very hard to prove that the intention was to kill, and unless you want to start sentencing people without having clear evidence, then this have to treated as manslaughter.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

whabang wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
The evidence shows murder. They have to prove their intentions (wich is impossible because their intentions were based on belief, and this part of belief can't be proven)
No, the evidence shows how the boy was killed; not why.
It is very hard to prove that the intention was to kill, and unless you want to start sentencing people without having clear evidence, then this have to treated as manslaughter.
The evidence shows that the boy was killed on purpose. That is murder in the first place. And now WHERE in the bible is stated that such a boy is posessed by demons? And that this is the kind of treatment to get rid of those demons?
They got a weak, weak case.
It's as if you're cought on the moment you pulled the trigger of your gun and you try to explain that you wanted him to get rid of his rotten molar.

[whabang]

It's impossible for either of us to say whether the evidence says murder or not. AFAIK, neither of us has looked at it, and the article does not say anything about the boy's death being intentional or not.
What we do know is that the boy died, because a priest on drugs tried to force the devil out of him, and I doubt that he would even try such a thing if he was intending to kill the boy; it would be easier to burn him at the stake or something.
The belief that this was a religious deed, shouldn't have anything to do with this.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

The amount of better alternatives to kill one, other than the method used isn't a valid argument for their intentions I think.
I mean, the fact that Bush did not use his nuclear warheads doesn't mean he did not attack Iraq intentionally.

[whabang]

Unfortunately, the means of war are mostly made legal by the winner.
Here, the society decides. :|

[FluffyMcDeath]

bloodline wrote:

T_Bone wrote:
True, this is unfortunate, but why should this be treated any differently than other accidental deaths caused by negligence? Because it was religious in nature? What if they were wrestling instead of praying and the boy smothered, would it be different?

The boy was accidentally smothered. While the death is tragic, it wasn't caused by the religion, like some deaths that occur when parents knowingly let their children suffer from infection with no antibiotics.

While I can see a slew of charges such as child abuse, negligence, manslaughter, etc being appropriate, I don't see a murder charge being appropriate.


The purpose of religion is to kill. This IS a murder. End of story.


Does it make a difference if the death of a child results, not from application of a religious disease model, but from some equally invalid psychological model?

Is it really any different from the case of Candace Newmaker (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=2&fldAuto=22)?

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

whabang wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
The evidence shows murder. They have to prove their intentions (wich is impossible because their intentions were based on belief, and this part of belief can't be proven)
No, the evidence shows how the boy was killed; not why.
It is very hard to prove that the intention was to kill, and unless you want to start sentencing people without having clear evidence, then this have to treated as manslaughter.
The evidence shows that the boy was killed on purpose.

Huh? Where's the evidence that shows he was killed on purpose?

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

bloodline wrote:

T_Bone wrote:
True, this is unfortunate, but why should this be treated any differently than other accidental deaths caused by negligence? Because it was religious in nature? What if they were wrestling instead of praying and the boy smothered, would it be different?

The boy was accidentally smothered. While the death is tragic, it wasn't caused by the religion, like some deaths that occur when parents knowingly let their children suffer from infection with no antibiotics.

While I can see a slew of charges such as child abuse, negligence, manslaughter, etc being appropriate, I don't see a murder charge being appropriate.


The purpose of religion is to kill. This IS a murder. End of story.


Does it make a difference if the death of a child results, not from application of a religious disease model, but from some equally invalid psychological model?

Is it really any different from the case of Candace Newmaker (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=2&fldAuto=22)?

Exactly. it's the same thing, weather it's religion or not. The other case wasn't murder either, although they got off light IMO.