When faith healing fails....... - Page 8

Reverend_Hellh0und · 03-31-08, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryreading

The question, to me, is how do we let certain nuts know that they can't do this to their child, no matter what their goddam twisted religion is?

It may be "goddam" it may be "twisted" but,

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution is clear.

Ethereal · 03-31-08, 12:15 PM

Quote:

HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases

The World Health Organization (WHO) stated that studies of three trials, one of which was completed, provide compelling evidence that male circumcision provides a 50-60% reduction in HIV transmission from female to male.[77] In 2007, the WHO and UNAIDS recommended that male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention,[14] but emphasised that it does not provide complete protection against HIV infection.[78] They have stated that scientific findings regarding the role of male circumcision in preventing heterosexual HIV infection are particularly relevant in regions where the incidence of heterosexually acquired HIV infection is high, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, and stressed that the procedure must be carried out safely and under conditions of informed consent.[79][80] Before there were any results from randomized controlled trials, reviews of observational data differed as to whether there was sufficient evidence for an intervention effect of circumcision against HIV.[81][82]

McCoombe et al. stated that a layer of keratin could provide protection from viral entry, and found that the keratin is thinner on the foreskin than the glans penis, and thinnest on the inner surface of the foreskin.[83]

A meta-analysis found that circumcision is associated with lower rates of syphilis, chancroid and possibly genital herpes.[84]

Hygiene, and infectious and chronic conditions

Studies have found that boys with foreskins tend to have higher rates of various infections and inflammations of the penis than those who are circumcised.[85][86][87] The foreskin may harbor bacteria and become infected if it is not cleaned properly,[88] but may become inflamed if it is cleaned too often with soap.[89] Also, the forcible retraction of the foreskin in boys can lead to infections.[70]

Circumcision is one treatment for balanitis. The usual treatment for balanoposthitis is to use topical antibiotics (metronidazole cream) and antifungals (clotrimazole cream) or low-potency steroid creams.[90]

Several studies have shown that uncircumcised men are at greater risk of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection.[91][92] One study found no statistically significant difference in the incidence of HPV infection between circumcised and uncircumcised men, but did note a higher prevalence of urethritis in the uncircumcised.[93] Twelve studies have indicated that neonatal circumcision reduces the rate of Urinary tract infections (UTI's) in male infants by a factor of about 10.[94] Some UTI studies have been criticized for not taking into account a high rate of UTI's among premature infants, who are usually not circumcised because of their fragile health status.[40] The AMA stated that “depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI," and noted one decision analysis model that concluded that circumcision was not justified as a preventative measure against UTI.[36]

Penile cancer

Penile cancer affects from 0.82 per 100,000 in Denmark to 10.5 per 100,000 men per year in parts of India (0.9 to 1 per 100,000 in the United States).[40] Studies have reported a rate of penile cancer from 3 to 22 times higher in uncircumcised than circumcised men.[95][96]

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated that studies suggest that neonatal circumcision confers some protection from penile cancer, but circumcision at a later age does not seem to confer the same level of protection. Further, because penile cancer is a rare disease, the risk of penile cancer developing in an uncircumcised man, although increased compared with a circumcised man, remains low.[40]

The American Cancer Society (2006) stated, "The current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer."[97]

Circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although not definitive I would say there is a definite preponderance of evidence to suggest that circumcision is benificial, and given the relatively benign nature of the procedure I see no reason why a parent shouldn't have the option.

Also, if you think there's a case for prohibiting neo-natal circumcisions I could make an equally valid case for mandatory neo-natal circumcisions, however, being that I'm not a fascist, I would never espouse such a ridiculous notion - why would you?

Lastly, you never answered my question - how would you know which form of sex is more pleasurable, or are you just speaking out of your tokus?

Ethereal · 03-31-08, 12:37 PM

Quote:

It may be "goddam" it may be "twisted" but,

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution is clear.

REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878)

98 U.S. 145

REYNOLDS
v.
UNITED STATES.

...

Upon this charge and refusal to charge the question is raised, whether religious belief can be accepted as a justification of an overt act made criminal by the law of the land. The inquiry is not as to the power of Congress to prescribe criminal laws for the Territories, but as to the guilt of one who knowingly violates a law which has been properly enacted, if he entertains a religious belief that the law is wrong.

Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.

...

In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

If you want to peruse the specific details of the case in question...

FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

Reverend_Hellh0und · 03-31-08, 12:39 PM

I applaud your research Eartheral.

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

But where do they draw the line I must ask.

Ethereal · 03-31-08, 12:51 PM

Quote:

But where do they draw the line I must ask?

Ideally, laws are enacted with the general purpose of upholding the rights of individuals garunteed to them by the Constitution, so any law enacted with this specific purpose in mind is Constitutionally valid, regardless of its interference with religious practice. This is the standard litmus test for whether or not the government is overstepping its bounds.

If, instead, the government enacted a law that interfered with a religious practice which had no observable hindrance of other's rights then it would most certainly have overstepped its bounds.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 03-31-08, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Ideally, laws are enacted with the general purpose of upholding the rights of individuals garunteed to them by the Constitution, so any law enacted with this specific purpose in mind is Constitutionally valid, regardless of its interference with religious practice. This is the standard litmus test for whether or not the government is overstepping its bounds.

If, instead, the government enacted a law that interfered with a religious practice which had no observable hindrance of other's rights then it would most certainly have overstepped its bounds.

I agree. You make a good point.

tryreading · 03-31-08, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

It may be "goddam" it may be "twisted" but,

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution is clear.

It is God Damned, it is twisted, and it is illegal and prosecutable to create a neglectful situation wherein your child dies.

There are limits government can place on your religious practices. Your actions, whether you think they are based on your 'free exercise of religion' or not, can be controlled by law. For instance, you can not pray out loud in a court room that is in session. You will be told to shut up, then escorted out if you don't stop. You may be held in contempt and arrested. If you think the Constitution says you can't be prosecuted and jailed for this because you are allowed to worship any way you want, you are very wrong.

Same way with child abuse. If your child dies because of a treatable condition because you thought it was your right to pray over that child instead of getting him the proper medical help, you are a criminal. Your rights as a parent are not more important or more protected than your child's rights. Your interpretation of the First Amendment is way off.

Ethereal · 03-31-08, 10:01 PM

It seems you're a bit slow to the draw, tryreading. Reverend and I have reached a resolution on the topic - quite amicably I might add.

new coup for you · 03-31-08, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

It may be "goddam" it may be "twisted" but,

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution is clear.

Why don't we allow death cults involving human sacrifice to practice their religion freely?

Ikari · 04-01-08, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

But where do they draw the line I must ask.

At the rights of others, and this girl's right to life was infringed upon grievously by the parents religious practice.