³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Justice was not done. They should have gotten the full 25 year sentence as a warning to others who believe in faith healing that there are consequences if they impose their false beliefs on those they have legal custody of and it results in injury or death.

Yet despite the relatively short sentence they got, the couple are appealing. In the Netherlands there have recently been a few high-profile cases where during appeal trials the guilty verdicts were upheld and heavier sentences were handed down than in the original trials. Who knows Marcus, if a silly country in Europe can do that, than surely you would hold out for the chance that the US legal system could do that too, and that the couple might still get a sentence closer to what you think is just.

And I think the judge could have left the god talk about how god works through people etc. out of his verdict.

I think the judge was being "cute" trying to talk to them in language they understood. Ultimately you don't own your children in the US, the state does. You merely have custody of them and they can be taken away by order of a court. When my aunt who lived with us for the last 2 1/2 years of her life was convalescing during the terminal phase of her illness, the county government sent "inspectors" around every two weeks to be certain she was getting the medical care, nutrition, hygiene, and other personal attention at a level they felt adequately met her needs. If we hadn't given it to her, a court could have removed custody and ordered that she be put in a nursing home where she would get them. The court takes ultimately responsibility for the welfare of anyone who cannot care for themselves including all children.

In America the State "owns" your children?

Shurely shome mishtake?

Yeah, I guess that's what the Neumann's thought too. Looks like they're the ones who made the mishtake.

This could be the tip of the iceberg, for all the fake healing Ministries who are doing the same thing on countless thousands of very needful people, then what's next? people who are serious about praying for the sick will be stopped from doing so.

johnthebap2

"people who are serious about praying for the sick will be stopped from doing so."

But John is it not possible to both pray for the sick and seek professional medical attention.

Surely the point here is the misuse of prayer and 'faith', in that to set faith/prayer in opposition to A&E is to turn faith into some kind of test, or badge of pride; you know, 'my faith's bigger than your faith' sort of thing.

I mean if we took things that far, we'd stop eating and say we were living on faith.

Sorry, these are poor examples and this is badly explained, but human beings have bodies which need attended to, faith is not magic, and bodies are not unspiritual. Sometimes the 'faith healing' movement strikes me as a bit Gnostic. (perhaps even spooky!) and there I go being flippant again, then again, sometimes it does seem a bit like that, sorry!

Markie, in the US the state does not "own" the children, nor does it here. Children are not commodities (or should not be treated as such). The rights of the child are paramount, and it is up to individuals and the state to act in the best interests of the child. Sometimes that means intervening and removing the child from abusive parents, such as the Neumanns. It is not always an easy call, but people are not property, even in the USA.

"But John is it not possible to both pray for the sick and seek professional medical attention."

Agreed--going to the doctor for medical treatment does not necessarily preclude faith and/or belief in god.

John, I hope you are simply trying to make your point, and don't actually believe the argument that this case marks some downward spiral criminalizing prayer.

I find modern medicine to be more efficacious than prayer, but also recognize that others receive some sort of psychological/emotional benefit from it. But that doesn't mean one should rely solely on prayer to get therm through whatever crisis (health or otherwise) s/he might be experiencing.

In the Synoptic Gospel's we find "Luke" a person who was both a very "intelligent Greek Doctor" who also was a eyewitness to many Acts of Healing through the power of Prayer, "but" yet the great Apostle Paul needed Luke's skill as a Physician while he was in jail sick.

The point is, there's nothing wrong in using both at the same time, so that the whole body and soul, spirit may prosper and be in good health.

The confusion, most Pentecostal's really don't know the difference between a Miracle from a Healing.

The problem, if there is a conspiracy against HONEST Christian's praying for the sick NOT fake TV healers, then this particular case could be the tip of the iceberg.

John, I doubt there is any sort of conspiracy against people wishing to pray for the sick. There's a big difference between praying for a sick friend vs. Billy Graham, Benny Hinn, et al. Nor do I think this case was the tip of the iceberg. This case represented parents who were tragically irresponsible, and instead of turning to modern medicine to help their daughter, relied solely on prayer. I guess I have trouble understanding the mind-set that going to the doctor is an affront to god.

Never did I say "that" prayer takes the place of Medical Science, if you seen my last post, I refer to "Doctor Luke" who still practised his Medical skills while knowing the power of Prayer, BUT in the sad case of the Neumann's they left out Medical Science to their cost.

Again,in the USA there is a battle going on between the Secular World and the Religious World, so to say that no one wants prayer stopped would be not correct, never mind conspiracy.

"Again,in the USA there is a battle going on between the Secular World and the Religious World, so to say that no one wants prayer stopped would be not correct, never mind conspiracy."

Ah, it's the great atheist conspiracy. Damn, we've been uncovered, our smart little plan is blown now. I guess we asked for it, put our great conspiracy plan on a publicly accessible website:

But how would anyone stop prayer?

How can you make prayer a criminal offence?

It is of course possible to make public prayer an offence, but that's a bit of a different thing.

I think the point in this case is the praying rather than seeking medical assistance, and the trouble with that is that some people (and it's not just the TV faith healers, it's a part of, albeit a very small part of, the christian world) think that to seek medical help is a failure on their part to have sufficient faith.

That is a wrong and a dangerous practice.

post...13,

85% of Americans believe in God and a fair proportion of them still want a Secular Constitution, so don't try and say that the Atheist's are the only ones who are being demonized over this issue.

#8 "The rights of the child are paramount"

Why?

"Again,in the USA there is a battle going on between the Secular World and the Religious World, so to say that no one wants prayer stopped would be not correct, never mind conspiracy."

John, I don't think secularists want prayer stopped. I think that for some people, prayer has a place in their lives. I certainly don't wish to see it mandated in schools, courts, etc., but if one wishes to pray, then more power to them. But as petermorrow pointed out, the case we're discussing isn't about stopping prayer, but the fact that there is a small proportion of Christians who believe that seeking medical help over prayer means they lack faith in god. To repeat what peter said, "That is a wrong and a dangerous practice." It is the practice of "faith-healing"--either by televangelist shysters or by a small percentage of well-meaning but woefully ignorant believers--that I think needs to be stopped.

"There is a battle going on between the secular world and the religious world."

The real battle going on in America and elsewhere is between rich and poor. The rich are quite happy to see people divided by race, creed, colour, philosophy, ideology, sexuality, sex etc.. and will actively encourage as much division as possible. They do want us to avoid discussing 'class' though.

Think about what the World Banks and Corporate Business have done recently. Had their victims been, say, exclusively black or gay or christian or female, there would have been organised outrage on a massive scale.

They've managed to make socialism a dirty word, removed any sort of urgent concern for the poor from religion and got everyone fragmented and fighting for secondary issues.

Secularists spend their energies laughing at creationists who think the world is only 6000 years old. Religious people moan about the 'threat' of secularisation.

Meanwhile two thirds of humanity suffer poverty and malnutrition.

I happen to believe that Darwin got more right than wrong. But ultimately, will the poor be better off once the arguing is over?