This blog allows students of Mr. Chazen's AP US Government classes to continue discussions, debates and conversations concerning issues and topics introduced in class.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
#6 1st Amendment issues_Christian Science
Do Christian Science parents have 1st Amendment protection if their child dies?
I do not believe Christian Science parents have the 1st amendment protection if their child dies. I understand that parents decide to support their child in their own practices that it is by their definition a non-neglect action; however, if this means that there could be a possibility of death in the subject matter, these parents should not be given the 1st amendment protection if their child dies. While these parents could be doing all they can, I believe that in order to do all a parent can is to completely and totally do anything possible to save their child's life. So for these reasons, I believe Christian Science parents should not have 1st amendment protection if their child dies.
I believe that parents who have these beliefs should take some responsibility if their child was to die because if the child is young, they are not able to care for themselves, and have no choice of what they believe when they are of that age. Yes, the parents have a right to believe what they would like and I believe they can practice that religion as much as they would like to, but regarding their young children who can not take the responsibility to care for themselves, and aren't aware what they believe, I believe it is their parents responsibility to keep them safe and healthy no matter what extent that goes to.
Parents should be responsible for their children and protecting their lives. Parents should not be protected legally if they watch their child dying day by day and refuse to seek medical treatment. To a certain extent it is okay to refrain from medicines such as Advil or tylenol or some antibiotics but when a child needs serious medical attention or is in obvious pain, it is cruel for a parent to decide for them that they cannot take medicine. The children need to be protected since they cannot make their own decisions most of the time. Parents should be held responsible if a child dies due to lack of treatment based on the parents decision.
Christian scientist parents should be held responsible for the death of a sick child when no action but prayer is taken, despite the 1st amendment. The government's job is to protect its citizens, and allowing a child to die while under the watch of Christian scientist parents is neglecting that duty. As a citizen, the child has a right to life that is being stolen by the parents, and just as human sacrifice would never be allowed under the first amendment, this same death in the name of religion should not be allowed under the first amendment.
Christian Science parents do not have the 1st Amendment protection if their child dies from a medical condition that can be treated with medicine. Even though their beliefs may lead them to resist doctors from giving treatment to their child, they may not be purposefully trying to harm their child, but by making their child, who has not yet determined what they believe in, suffer the consequences of their decisions, they do not have the right to the 1st Amendment protection.
I believe that Christian Scientists have the right to do what they believe is not "negligence" in order to try to keep their child alive. In a case like this, where medicine does not save the kid 100% of the time, taking a kid in for treatment is not going to save him or her in the eyes of a Christian Scientist parent. As a result, their methods of praying and other forms of treatment that they adhere to results in their freedom to adhere to the rules. The most important issue discussed in this case is that there is no negligence as the parents believed that they did everything possible to save their child. As a result, they cannot be charged with negligence and are protected under the law. Personally, I would strongly disagree with not using medicine, but I think that from a strictly fair stance, I find this circumstance acceptable under the Constitution.
I believe that parents who practice Christian Science should not be protected under the 1st amendment if their child dies. The parents are doing everything they believe they can do, however, they are not doing everything that can be done to save their child. Anyone can believe in any religion, but a child in these circumstances is forced to heed their parents beliefs, which may not be the best thing for him or her.
I believe that parents who practice Christian Science should not be protected under the 1st amendment if their child dies. The parents are doing everything they believe they can do, however, they are not doing everything that can be done to save their child. Anyone can believe in any religion, but a child in these circumstances is forced to heed their parents beliefs, which may not be the best thing for him or her.
I believe that parents have the right to do whatever they want for their child. Especially in Christian Science situations when the parents are doing what they think is necessary to help their child. This is not neglect because they are doing what they think is right so they should not be punished for this. Although there are ways that the child could have been saved, it is their religious views that led them to believe that prayer would save the child. It's their decision that they can make for themselves.
I believe that the Christian scientist parents should not be protected under the first amendment if their child dies from a medical condition that could have been saved with medicine. It may be true that they have a strong belief in god, and that He would listen to their prayers and help the son, but in no means does that allow them to ONLY pray for the child instead of seeking medicine. You could argue that strep doesn't have to be healed with medicine, but when it gets to a point where the kid has an infection, and starts to get comas, I think they should have known better to take him to a hospital to seek medicine. Clearly when it's as urgent as a coma, I would believe that a parent would try what ever they could to save their child. These parents did not. They thought they did everything by praying, but that wasn't everything, that was just one option of a "cure". It is a parents responsibility to care for their child in whatever way they could, and they could pray as much as they can, but they can also use common sense to get a doctor.
Using the employment division of Oregon V Smith as a comparison, the free exercise clause allows individuals to freely exercise their beliefs as long as it does not violate laws. As such, parents should not be allowed to utilize their religion in treating their children if it violates child abuse laws preventing negligence that results in death. In this way, like Oregon V Smith, the free exercise of religion does not trump laws enacted to protect.
Because their child died clearly at the hands of the parents’ decision I believe that these parents should not be protected by the 1st Amendment. While it may be true that these parents believed that they were acting in the “best interest” of their child, if the lack of treatment lasted so long that it resulted in death, they had to have noticed the debilitating effects occurring on the child as they slowly died, and should have realized at one point that something was not quite working. Additionally, while still saying that they acted with faith, they need to realize that some of these decisions would have its drawbacks, especially since allowing a child to perish is in many ways simply neglect. Additionally, it is a set ideal that the 1st amendment says that we are free to think as we wish, but not necessarily act.
before i put out my opinion , i would like to inform you guys that we will never reach to an agreement because anyone can take either side and have a strong opinion. i believe that if an only if the child WANTS no medical treatment and reaches for his christian science practice, then the parents should not be punished. if the child has been put in this situation even though he wants to get medical attention, then she parents should be punished, because even though the parents do lose their child if he dies, the person who is going to pay the ultimate price is the child, so his/her voice is the voice that needs to be heard, the parents
I agree with Steven. If there are laws requiring parents to seek medical care, Christian Science parents should not receive First Amendment protection. However, it is difficult to establish the point at which parents should seek medical treatment. If there are no such laws with the requirement to do so, then the parents should not be prosecuted for negligence. But to everyone saying that the parents are imposing beliefs on their children, that is a broad assertion. It is also imposing beliefs to take children to church, tell them that stealing is bad, or tell them if God exists or not. Under this logic, these actions cannot receive First Amendment protection. Think carefully before posing this argument.
I agree with the majority of people that parents who are christian science should not let their children die, and they would deserve some type of consequence if their child died.People are free to practice their religion, however if it involves death then there needs to be restrictions. The situation is worse because the child is still young and still has so much ahead of them. I don't believe that only praying will heal a person, if that was the case then why do we even have doctors. Christian Science parents should not have the 1st amendment protection if their child dies.
Parents should be responsible if anything happens to their children. They should be held responsible for the death of a sick child. In the long run, the parents are making the decision for the child and therefore the child is suffering the consequences. Yes, they can still have their beliefs, but how far can they go without seeking medical attention to save their own child. I think it is cruel and I believe parents should not have the 1st amendment protection if their child dies.
Parents do not have the protection of the 1st Amendment if their children die. Yes it follows their religion, but it is not considered right. Going back to the case where the church was sacrificing animals, this should be considered on of the practices/rituals that should not be aloud to happen. It puts the child in danger. Who want their child to die before themselves or before they have truly experienced life?
It's like asking would you rather die free, or live with others making your decisions for you? Belief is the decision of all decisions. For many, it is life. The parents did all in their power, all they knew and felt was right to save the life of their child. They loved and cared for their child with as much care and effort as any other parent would, but in a different way. Sure it's cruel, maybe inhumane, but you can't allow freedom of religion in pieces. It's it, and that's that. Let people believe what they want or don't. It's as American as apple pie. Just like shaking a hand, just like opening a shop each morning and closing it at night, even wiping before flushing, do you think twice about it? No. The memes being altered and constantly set forth by society are slowly whittling away at religion and the common values and standards of the modern day are taking their place. I don't want them to be protected, or any religion or belief going against people's rights or killing them in any way. But I do believe in the freedom of belief. I think they should be protected because it's their belief and every citizen of America has the freedom of belief. This should be protected until there's a national belief or until the freedom of religion is taken away.
I concur with Steven and Crystal. Under Oregon v Smith, the practicing of religion does not give people the right to abuse previously established laws. Relating this to parent negligence, would it be considered negligence for a couple to sacrifice their firstborn because they believe it will cure them of a cold? No, because it breaks a multitude of laws. While the case presented is less secure, laws protecting child welfare still trump freedom of religious expression, leading to the guilt of the parents. Had they not been charged, the government would have favored Religion over law, strictly forbidden by the establishment clause.
I agree with Ela Sutcu because of urgency and death as results. According to religious practice and cases in the past, certain practices should be stopped if death could occur. 1st Amendment rights should not extend to the point of death or other urgencies as a result. Even if the parents were helping their child with prayer, medicine may be required in a dire situation such as this.
21 comments:
I do not believe Christian Science parents have the 1st amendment protection if their child dies. I understand that parents decide to support their child in their own practices that it is by their definition a non-neglect action; however, if this means that there could be a possibility of death in the subject matter, these parents should not be given the 1st amendment protection if their child dies. While these parents could be doing all they can, I believe that in order to do all a parent can is to completely and totally do anything possible to save their child's life. So for these reasons, I believe Christian Science parents should not have 1st amendment protection if their child dies.
I believe that parents who have these beliefs should take some responsibility if their child was to die because if the child is young, they are not able to care for themselves, and have no choice of what they believe when they are of that age. Yes, the parents have a right to believe what they would like and I believe they can practice that religion as much as they would like to, but regarding their young children who can not take the responsibility to care for themselves, and aren't aware what they believe, I believe it is their parents responsibility to keep them safe and healthy no matter what extent that goes to.
Parents should be responsible for their children and protecting their lives. Parents should not be protected legally if they watch their child dying day by day and refuse to seek medical treatment. To a certain extent it is okay to refrain from medicines such as Advil or tylenol or some antibiotics but when a child needs serious medical attention or is in obvious pain, it is cruel for a parent to decide for them that they cannot take medicine. The children need to be protected since they cannot make their own decisions most of the time. Parents should be held responsible if a child dies due to lack of treatment based on the parents decision.
Christian scientist parents should be held responsible for the death of a sick child when no action but prayer is taken, despite the 1st amendment. The government's job is to protect its citizens, and allowing a child to die while under the watch of Christian scientist parents is neglecting that duty. As a citizen, the child has a right to life that is being stolen by the parents, and just as human sacrifice would never be allowed under the first amendment, this same death in the name of religion should not be allowed under the first amendment.
Christian Science parents do not have the 1st Amendment protection if their child dies from a medical condition that can be treated with medicine. Even though their beliefs may lead them to resist doctors from giving treatment to their child, they may not be purposefully trying to harm their child, but by making their child, who has not yet determined what they believe in, suffer the consequences of their decisions, they do not have the right to the 1st Amendment protection.
I believe that Christian Scientists have the right to do what they believe is not "negligence" in order to try to keep their child alive. In a case like this, where medicine does not save the kid 100% of the time, taking a kid in for treatment is not going to save him or her in the eyes of a Christian Scientist parent. As a result, their methods of praying and other forms of treatment that they adhere to results in their freedom to adhere to the rules. The most important issue discussed in this case is that there is no negligence as the parents believed that they did everything possible to save their child. As a result, they cannot be charged with negligence and are protected under the law. Personally, I would strongly disagree with not using medicine, but I think that from a strictly fair stance, I find this circumstance acceptable under the Constitution.
I believe that parents who practice Christian Science should not be protected under the 1st amendment if their child dies. The parents are doing everything they believe they can do, however, they are not doing everything that can be done to save their child. Anyone can believe in any religion, but a child in these circumstances is forced to heed their parents beliefs, which may not be the best thing for him or her.
I believe that parents who practice Christian Science should not be protected under the 1st amendment if their child dies. The parents are doing everything they believe they can do, however, they are not doing everything that can be done to save their child. Anyone can believe in any religion, but a child in these circumstances is forced to heed their parents beliefs, which may not be the best thing for him or her.
I believe that parents have the right to do whatever they want for their child. Especially in Christian Science situations when the parents are doing what they think is necessary to help their child. This is not neglect because they are doing what they think is right so they should not be punished for this. Although there are ways that the child could have been saved, it is their religious views that led them to believe that prayer would save the child. It's their decision that they can make for themselves.
I believe that the Christian scientist parents should not be protected under the first amendment if their child dies from a medical condition that could have been saved with medicine. It may be true that they have a strong belief in god, and that He would listen to their prayers and help the son, but in no means does that allow them to ONLY pray for the child instead of seeking medicine. You could argue that strep doesn't have to be healed with medicine, but when it gets to a point where the kid has an infection, and starts to get comas, I think they should have known better to take him to a hospital to seek medicine. Clearly when it's as urgent as a coma, I would believe that a parent would try what ever they could to save their child. These parents did not. They thought they did everything by praying, but that wasn't everything, that was just one option of a "cure". It is a parents responsibility to care for their child in whatever way they could, and they could pray as much as they can, but they can also use common sense to get a doctor.
Using the employment division of Oregon V Smith as a comparison, the free exercise clause allows individuals to freely exercise their beliefs as long as it does not violate laws. As such, parents should not be allowed to utilize their religion in treating their children if it violates child abuse laws preventing negligence that results in death. In this way, like Oregon V Smith, the free exercise of religion does not trump laws enacted to protect.
Because their child died clearly at the hands of the parents’ decision I believe that these parents should not be protected by the 1st Amendment. While it may be true that these parents believed that they were acting in the “best interest” of their child, if the lack of treatment lasted so long that it resulted in death, they had to have noticed the debilitating effects occurring on the child as they slowly died, and should have realized at one point that something was not quite working. Additionally, while still saying that they acted with faith, they need to realize that some of these decisions would have its drawbacks, especially since allowing a child to perish is in many ways simply neglect. Additionally, it is a set ideal that the 1st amendment says that we are free to think as we wish, but not necessarily act.
before i put out my opinion , i would like to inform you guys that we will never reach to an agreement because anyone can take either side and have a strong opinion. i believe that if an only if the child WANTS no medical treatment and reaches for his christian science practice, then the parents should not be punished. if the child has been put in this situation even though he wants to get medical attention, then she parents should be punished, because even though the parents do lose their child if he dies, the person who is going to pay the ultimate price is the child, so his/her voice is the voice that needs to be heard, the parents
I agree with Steven. If there are laws requiring parents to seek medical care, Christian Science parents should not receive First Amendment protection. However, it is difficult to establish the point at which parents should seek medical treatment. If there are no such laws with the requirement to do so, then the parents should not be prosecuted for negligence.
But to everyone saying that the parents are imposing beliefs on their children, that is a broad assertion. It is also imposing beliefs to take children to church, tell them that stealing is bad, or tell them if God exists or not. Under this logic, these actions cannot receive First Amendment protection. Think carefully before posing this argument.
I agree with the majority of people that parents who are christian science should not let their children die, and they would deserve some type of consequence if their child died.People are free to practice their religion, however if it involves death then there needs to be restrictions. The situation is worse because the child is still young and still has so much ahead of them. I don't believe that only praying will heal a person, if that was the case then why do we even have doctors. Christian Science parents should not have the 1st amendment protection if their child dies.
Parents should be responsible if anything happens to their children. They should be held responsible for the death of a sick child. In the long run, the parents are making the decision for the child and therefore the child is suffering the consequences. Yes, they can still have their beliefs, but how far can they go without seeking medical attention to save their own child. I think it is cruel and I believe parents should not have the 1st amendment protection if their child dies.
Parents do not have the protection of the 1st Amendment if their children die. Yes it follows their religion, but it is not considered right. Going back to the case where the church was sacrificing animals, this should be considered on of the practices/rituals that should not be aloud to happen. It puts the child in danger. Who want their child to die before themselves or before they have truly experienced life?
It's like asking would you rather die free, or live with others making your decisions for you? Belief is the decision of all decisions. For many, it is life. The parents did all in their power, all they knew and felt was right to save the life of their child. They loved and cared for their child with as much care and effort as any other parent would, but in a different way. Sure it's cruel, maybe inhumane, but you can't allow freedom of religion in pieces. It's it, and that's that. Let people believe what they want or don't. It's as American as apple pie. Just like shaking a hand, just like opening a shop each morning and closing it at night, even wiping before flushing, do you think twice about it? No. The memes being altered and constantly set forth by society are slowly whittling away at religion and the common values and standards of the modern day are taking their place. I don't want them to be protected, or any religion or belief going against people's rights or killing them in any way. But I do believe in the freedom of belief. I think they should be protected because it's their belief and every citizen of America has the freedom of belief. This should be protected until there's a national belief or until the freedom of religion is taken away.
I concur with Steven and Crystal. Under Oregon v Smith, the practicing of religion does not give people the right to abuse previously established laws. Relating this to parent negligence, would it be considered negligence for a couple to sacrifice their firstborn because they believe it will cure them of a cold? No, because it breaks a multitude of laws. While the case presented is less secure, laws protecting child welfare still trump freedom of religious expression, leading to the guilt of the parents. Had they not been charged, the government would have favored Religion over law, strictly forbidden by the establishment clause.
I agree with Ela Sutcu because of urgency and death as results. According to religious practice and cases in the past, certain practices should be stopped if death could occur. 1st Amendment rights should not extend to the point of death or other urgencies as a result. Even if the parents were helping their child with prayer, medicine may be required in a dire situation such as this.
Post a Comment