Creationists are fond to equate Darwinism with eugenics and fascism as they dangle the fear of Nazi state led eugenics programs in front of the faces of the unsophisticated. Of course, much of the eugenics under the Nazi regime was little more than your old-fashioned garden variety Antisemitism and a variety of other racist beliefs couched in an official pogrom and jargon. It had little to Darwinism but the creationists figure if you throw enough crap about something is bound to stick to someone. The fact that the holocaust was the result of hundreds of years of religious intolerance in Europe just obscures the Expelled crowd’s true agenda. Of course, to blame religion and god for the holocaust is just as absurd as to blame Darwin. Blame the rightful source for this continued desecration of humanity: man’s baser behavior.
Well, now is the time for evolutionists and Darwinists to stick some crap to their Intelligent Design dogma. So to all of my creationists friends by all means reject science, embrace the world of gods and angels preferably a Christian world and by all means revel in your ignorance. You know more than the eggheads will ever know because, after all you, are a true believer. To hell with nuance and shades of gray, you are black and white man and god is on your side.
And let’s face it, verifiable and testable results are not your norm but are rather the tools of subjugation utilized by the atheist scientists. Your norm is the rejection of science and medicine wherever it conflicts with your god-view. So if a home schooled eleven year-old girl dies of a diabetic shock because her fundamentalist parents believe more in prayer than insulin, so be it. Such is your influence that in Wisconsin there is a statue protecting such child abusive behavior. Wisconsin state statute 948.03(6) provides an exemption from the law against failing to act to protect children from bodily harm for what is referred to as “Treatment through prayer.” The statute says: “A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing … in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.”
Now if you are a normal, all American, family loving kind of guy or gal this sort of law should raise some type of proverbial red flag for you. While you have been sleeping the religious wackos have been working with our sycophant, pandering politicians and have been quietly subverting our laws and making the world save for family child abusers. Then again, you are probably more concerned about the latest puppy mill scandal on Oprah than you are about that eleven-year old girl who recently died. Such is our world where the pious get absolved of sin and yet they get to cast aspersions about everybody else who differs with their strange world view. Such is the world of the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed followers, where they want to extend this type wacky rationale and thinking into our public schools and all in the name of fair play!
Remember, Intelligent Design as depicted in Expelled is not a science and if this continues to spread and infect our future generations expect to read more headlines like the one in Wassau, Wisconsin. You may be okay with that daunting prospect but I am not going to ignore that young girl’s smell of death.
Wow. I cannot believe there is actually a law permitting that sort of abuse. I know well the case of the child in Oregon (just a few miles from me) who died from the withholding of medical care because it did not mesh with the tenets of the parents’ religion. At least we have a law that allows their prosecution. They got away with the previous death of a child because of an *absence* of legislation. But to have an actual law in the books protecting that behavior is just beyond the pale.
Those laws are on the books to protect the constitutional rights to freedom of religion, not to promote specific religious practices. There are sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses that, for instance, will not accept blood transfusions.
These are extreme minorities within Christendom.
Enacting legislation telling them they are “wrong” and unable to practice their religion as they see fit (regardless of how morally offensive the outcome might be) would erode constitutional rights.
The issue is not whether they’re wrong or ignorant; the issue is the protection of rights.
In a recent case in Washington, the courts ruled in favor of parental rights in the case of a minor who refused a transfusion on religious grounds. The State had argued that parental rights should be abrogated, and that the State should act on behalf of the minor and overrule the child’s wishes. And Washington has pretty liberal courts, so this is a thorny judicial issue, not some simple “I know what’s right and you don’t” game of moral one-upsmanship.
Such legislation is the result of broad-minded constitutionalists, including liberals, not “religious wackos” and “sycophant, pandering politicians” bent on “subverting our laws.” Dunno about Wisconsin, but if you looked into it I suspect you’d find that the law has been on the books for decades, too, and is not the product of some recent “pandering.”
In any event, I believe the child in Washington, like the one in Wisconsin, died while the courts were wrangling over an appeal.
It’s also worth pointing out, I think, that Jehovah’s witnesses would never sign up to I.D., nor would they ever, ever endorse the teaching of religion in schools. They are strict, strict, separationists who don’t even celebrate religious national holidays like Christmas and Thanksgiving because such state-established observances are immoral. You might want to read up on their beliefs before lumping them in with other Christian sects and denominations, all of which have their own unique slants.
Greg,
So from your comment you’re okay with the death of the Wisconsin girl in the name of religious freedom? What about the child’s civil rights? I guess if a sect believes that it’s okay for a fourteen year old girl to be married and then raped by her cousin you’re okay with that too, of course, in the name of religious freedom? Frankly, I think the way founding fathers had it figured was that your rights end when they interfere with mine or in this case, a child’s.
By the way, I wasn’t specifically referencing Jehovah’s Witnesses but now that you mention it abstaining from a transfusion for your child as part of a prescribed treatment is the definition of abuse. And let’s go to the source regarding this practice by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The passage that causes some considerable consternation for Jehovah’s Witnesses is to “abstain from blood” but what the hell does that mean? Blood letting or sacrifices comes immediately to mind but for the most part it is agreed that it references the eating of blood as a food product. I guess there are not a lot of Maasai Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, some goober decided to extend the meaning to medical practice of transfusions. Once again the word of god gets to be determined by a number of bozos who think they can double date with the all-mighty and speak for god. And guess what the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been altering their view on this practice as well so I guess this is a moving target. Sorry, this is child abuse as far as I am concerned. If you want to die for you beliefs that’s your business but please allow your child the opportunity to grow up and make their own decisions regarding their own path in life.
Erik John Bertel
Why do you assume that people must care about one or the other when it comes to the suffering of weak and defenseless beings when you say “Then again, you are probably more concerned about the latest puppy mill scandal on Oprah than you are about that eleven-year old girl who recently died”?
Why is it that people who care for animals are automatically assumed to be compassionless for the suffering of people, especially the weaker among us? As a matter of fact, the opposite is usually true.
Most balanced and kind people who have concerns about animal welfare are just as concerned about the welfare of people and have long understood the link between animal cruelty and violence towards humans. There is much documentation now proving that those among us who abuse animals do, indeed, abuse and commit violence against other humans, especially weaker human beings like children, women, and the elderly.
Decent people are fully capable of having concerns for BOTH the needless suffering of the animals and the suffering inflicted on other human beings. The key word in that sentence is “suffering”. When it comes to suffering, good and kind people are perfectly capable of being concerned about BOTH people and animals. To be concerned about the suffering of animals is not done at the exclusion or expense of people; it is done so with the inclusion of people. Those who hurt animals will hurt people. Prevent animal cruelty and you will prevent additional abuse inflicted on weaker human beings.
That being said, suffering at the hands of cruel and/or neglectful people, regardless of whether the defenseless recipient is human or animal, should not be tolerated by society. Period!
I don’t disagree with anything you are saying however it is my observation that the Michael Vick story elicited far more outrage and passion than did the unnecessary death of this poor girl.
And believe me. she suffered a more painful and lingering death than the dogs used in those horrible fights! Insulin shock therapy is a form of torture and was described in great detail within a Fan’s Notes by the way.
For the most part this story has gone unnoticed in the US but I noticed that in Britain there were a two hundred Internet responses in outrage to this death in Wisconsin. My commentary was actually directed to the sappy Oprah moment that stirs people and not as a challenge to animal right’s advocates. You, being the public, are worried about a puppy mill but where is your outrage when all of Southeast Asia is being clearcut?
All living creatures deserve both respect and a space on this planet to live and we cannot continue to consume the planet at the expense of our animal brethren. However, if we can’t respect human life I have little hope that we will somehow find new respect for the rest of the living world. It’s that simple.
What about the civil rights of millions of aborted humans? This happens everyday despite a huge outcry from millions of people? Yow do you feel about American Indian’s rights to what would otherwise be illegal drugs since it is part of their religion, even though they might die from those drugs? Where is the line between our rights to “no state religion” and the states rights to ensure our safety? The majority of the press’s attention seems to be on “the separation of church and state” even though that is not in the constitution as such.
It’s a shame someone died in this case. But if all of our rights died, that would be a travesty.
Your rights end when they interfere with my own. That is why the kids were taken from the wackos in Texas. I would not even begin to open up the can of worms regarding abortion.
Erik John Bertel