Skip to main content

View Diary: Family Chooses Prayer Over Medicine, Kills Their Second Child in Four Years (439 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fanatical perhaps except it says in the bible (19+ / 0-)

    That whatever you ask in Jesus' name will be granted. And that you can move mountains with the faith of a mustard seed. That those filled with the Holy Spirit will heal people and cast out demons etc etc in "his name".

    I'm sorry. I'm tired of no true Scotsman arguments. I'm glad your religious relatives would never have done what they did. That they found a rational way to ignore the teachings in the bible which, frankly, argue closer to what these people did than anything. The thing itself is fanatical. That most Christians decide not to follow it to the letter or take parts of it seriously or literally is good. But the book says what it says.

    •  Is it ironic to say "amen"? n/t (5+ / 0-)

      Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré

      by milton333 on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 02:21:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I never suggested... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      earicicle, kyril, smartalek, Wee Mama, Ahianne

      that the Bible was filled with sweetness and light. Some passages are beautiful. Others are quite frightening. That really has nothing to do with the point I was attempting to make.

      I don't know who qualifies as a "real" or a "true" Christian, and frankly, I don't care, because I'm not one.

      I was responding to the blanket statement that "religion kills", which implies that religion (all religion, not just Christianity) is always a destructive force. I don't believe that to be true. Religion is ultimately whatever a believer chooses to make of it. That is true not only of Christianity, but of all faiths. There are the Pat Robertsons of this world, who use religion as an excuse for bigotry and violence. There are also individuals like Martin Luther King, Jr., whose religion led him down a path of peace and justice. Most believers fall somewhere in between those two extremes.

      I am a spiritual person, but not at all religious. I belong to no church and cling to no official dogma. Still, I refuse to condemn all religion outright because of fanatics. I find that stance very narrow-minded.

      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

      by AuroraDawn on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 02:28:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I have to disagree with you on this (0+ / 0-)

        point.  Every religion demands that an individual accept on faith certain matters to be true, whether there is any evidence for these matters.  This is destructive on at least two levels.  First, one's sense data and rationality is suborned to an unreasonable authority, and second, one's ability to reason is compromised when a personally reached conclusion is  contrary to the given truth.  From this comes the notion of religious sin, acts of unbelief, which is substituted in the conscience for actual sin, acts that harm others.  This process is deadly, and then enables the priests and preachers to convince people that real life is burdensome and unreal, that that life begins at death.  How easy it is then to get people to fail to help those they love, to harm those that are different, and to stone the sinners (unbelievers) to death.  NO, all religion is by its operation, death.

        Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

        by StrayCat on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 03:06:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow. (6+ / 0-)
          How easy it is then to get people to fail to help those they love, to harm those that are different, and to stone the sinners (unbelievers) to death.
          Seen any Quakers throwing rocks at women lately?

          The argument that all religion is death is one of the most absurd things I've ever read. And I've read a lot of scriptures.

          To pretend that the extreme is the norm is patently irrational. You're doing a lot of mental acrobatics to convince yourself of this.

          An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

          by OllieGarkey on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 05:43:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What about (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rhyme and reason

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            Since almost all Amish descend from about 200 18th-century founders, genetic disorders that come out due to inbreeding exist in more isolated districts (an example of the founder effect). Some of these disorders are quite rare, or unique, and are serious enough to increase the mortality rate among Amish children. The majority of Amish accept these as "Gottes Wille" (God's will); they reject use of preventive genetic tests prior to marriage and genetic testing of unborn children to discover genetic disorders
            Do they get a pass for that?
            •  No. It's barbaric to knowingly subject (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              smartalek, Wee Mama

              children to disease.

              You do know that Quakers and Amish are completely different groups, right?

              An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

              by OllieGarkey on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 06:06:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rhyme and reason

                I do, but typically the Amish are included in the 'harmless' religious types category.

                I haven't fully signed on to the gun culture == religious culture with regard to societal harm, but it's something I'm gonna chew on a bit.

                One could certainly make the argument that the pervasiveness of religious culture in the US makes cases like the diary more likely, just as the gun culture increases the prevalence of gun deaths.

                •  Well, there's something I'll have to fight you on. (3+ / 0-)

                  I think we should regulate what people are allowed to own.

                  But your comparison implies that it's time to start regulating what people think. It may not have been an intentional comparison, but there are a number of people whose thoughts move in that direction.

                  An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

                  by OllieGarkey on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 06:39:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's a distinction (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ChurchofBruce

                    without a a substantive difference. You won't be able to regulate what people own until their thinking changes. This is why I and others are talking about gun culture (thinking) not gun ownership. The two are necessarily and inextricably linked.

                    It's not about regulating thought, be it gun thought or religious thought, it's about changing thought, gun and religious alike, to minimize the negative impact on society.

                    How? Beats the hell out of me, as both seem to be pretty firmly entrenched.

                    •  The answer to right-wing religion is not a lack of (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      la motocycliste, Wee Mama

                      religion. It is a combination of time, and left-wing religion.

                      The religious conservatives will diminish in number. The current generation of southerners in general has no problem with gays and lesbians, though there are bigots aplenty.

                      By acting as part of a broad coalition for a plural society, we can reduce the power of the fundamentalists.

                      Fundamentalists don't do plurality. They can't. It's incompatible with their worldview. Worldwide, that kind of religion will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

                      That's the way it usually works.

                      We know all about the pilgrims, but even the first generation of their children were already walking away from the rigid fundamentalism of their parents.

                      Give it time. Our side wins in the end.

                      And as far as tackling gun culture? Don't bother. You wont be successful. What we need to focus on is smart regulation that helps keep people alive. We're already winning that battle, nationally, and it's because the larger forces fighting for gun control aren't talking about gun owners and gun culture.

                      The moment gun owners and gun culture become the dominant part of the conversation is the moment we start losing. It's alienating language that will push away the gun owners that support really smart gun control laws, including a ban on the sale of those exceptionally dangerous semiautomatic pistols and rifles that were used in Aurora, Newtown, and by the DC Sniper.

                      This is one of my biggest beefs with liberals.

                      We sit around and make up terminology like "gun culture" and talk about fixing problems that aren't really our business.

                      Seriously, it's none of your business if Joe Machinegun is a gun fetishist who likes posing naked with assault rifles.

                      It is your business if his actions are a hazard to the public.

                      Don't even bother raising the question of whether there's something wrong with his gun fetishism. And on the religious side, don't bother raising the question of whether certain kinds of religion make people stupid.

                      If people want to choose to be willfully fucking ignorant, that's their right, and there's not a damned thing that you will ever be able to do about it. It's a waste of your time to try.

                      Instead, focus your efforts on supporting those policy changes which will have a real and lasting change for the American people. Let's focus on background checks, and getting the gun control systems in place that can keep guns away from people who are dangerous. Let's focus on defeating the anti-choice crowd and fighting for marriage equality.

                      If we stand up for sanity and liberty, we win.

                      If we go around like we're out to impose our will on others because we think we know better, we'll lose.

                      An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

                      by OllieGarkey on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 08:31:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Um (0+ / 0-)

                        we weren't able to pass expanded background checks in the Senate with ~90% public support.

                        Because of gun culture.

                        And that's even without considering that the House would have been even less likely to pass legislation.

                        You're far more optimistic than I am.

                        •  Newtown changed everything. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Wee Mama

                          We haven't had an election cycle yet.

                          We're gonna make the democrats who stood against background checks eat those votes in the primaries.

                          The people you bitch about who are involved in gun culture? They support background checks. With 47% of Americans being gun owners, and 90% of americans supporting background checks, Something like 75% of gun owners support background checks if you do the math.

                          Here you are complaining about "gun culture" when the real issue is special interests, lobbyists, and a corrupt political system.

                          Gun culture isn't the problem, government culture is. We live in a nation where bribery is legal, and we spent 2 billion dollars on the 2012 election.

                          Yet you want to blame "gun culture" when most of the people involved in "gun culture" supported the background checks that you say "gun culture" defeated.

                          Your argument is fallacious. The defeat had nothing to do with gun culture, and everything to do with the legal corruption of our government by corporations and lobbyists with money.

                          An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

                          by OllieGarkey on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 08:44:11 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The NRA would not have the political clout (0+ / 0-)

                            if the politicians didn't believe in the gun culture of their constituents. If gun culture didn't exist, then politicians wouldn't worry about being reelected if they voted against gun control.

                            While the NRA certainly represents the interests of money and gun manufacturers, their true power is derived from the gun culture, and votes, that they claim to represent.

                            We spent 2 billion on the election, and yet big money still lost elections, as we gloated about here regarding Karl Rove's PAC. Money certainly influences, but it all boils down to votes in the end. People who voted against gun control legislation did a political calculation and determined that there was no political price to pay for their votes.

                            I'm not optimistic that 2014 will prove them wrong.

                            You cite that 'gun culture' supported increased background checks, and that's true (though certainly at a lower level than the general population). But the real question is do those same people demand that their politicians take action and support gun control. Will they withhold their votes from politicians that voted against background checks?

                            I seriously doubt it.

                      •  One of the best comments I have seen on Kos (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        OllieGarkey

                        I have tried to make the same point in several postings, but you nailed it.

    •  The Bible was also written +/- 2000 years ago (10+ / 0-)

      The Pope has a personal physician who travels with him and is available 24/7.

      Benedict didn't choose just any general practitioner but a respected cardiologist.

      It's insane to say, well, the Bible says the earth was created in 7 days, so all Christians believe that. We don't. Many (most in the developed world) acknowledge and respect science.

      Those that choose to remain in the darkness of ignorance do so for their own reasons.

      In the same week when we tell everyone that we must not judge Muslims by the actions of two unstable young men, the "stop the No True Scotsman" crap is mind-boggling.

      Unstable people are unstable people. They justify what they do by searching for justifications wherever they can find them. It's about distrust of the world and desperately holding on to what little control they think they have. They don't really expect miracles.

      How do I know? you don't REALLY see these folks ever trying to turn water into wine, do you?

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 02:43:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grover

        this is exactly what I was trying to say below, but you were much more succinct.

        Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

        by AuroraDawn on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 02:47:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I was merely addressing the claim that these (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, ktar7582

        People were fanatical. I submit that they're doing exactly what the book says. Is it crazy? Yes. But it's also biblical. Those who choose not to are cherry picking their faith. I'm glad they do. I'm glad the make rational decisions about what should be followed and what should be ignored or discarded. That's good, don't get me wrong.

        But there's no reason to assert that these people didn't follow their "faith teaching". I think it's disgusting. I'm glad most Christians have decided those verses about getting what you pray for and moving mountains with faith aren't literal. Good. I'm glad the majority agree that that's ridiculous. But these chose to actually believe it.

        •  In fairness to the Christians, (6+ / 0-)

          Catholic theology, which was the only kind for the bulk of Christianity's history doesn't really hold the Bible up as a whole, inerrant work like the new fundamentalists do. It isn't even really seen as being super-fundamental to the religion since the church itself was around for a couple hundred years before it's compilation.

          The idea that the book would dictate that sort of action is a fairly recent intellectual ( I use the term loosely) phenomenon.

          •  True and that the religion relied on (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril

            People not being able to read it but rather being reliant on its interpretation by a priest and pope. The power centralized into people. But see the trouble that Martin Luther has caused? All the people running around actually reading (and following) the thing? /s

          •  The Super-Fundies showed up in America (6+ / 0-)

            In the late 1800's.  I recall reading something about an earlier (1840-1850s) movement but don't have that link here.  I can provide it later, when I get home to my laptop.

            This is a pretty informative Blurb with history from the Catholic perspective, which puts the arrival of Fundamentalism at approx 1890.

            The thing is, Fundies are a smalish young sect of Mainstream Christianity, much like LDS. Actually, LDS is older. And few here (who are fair-minded) would  ever say that LDS represents Christianity as a whole.

            It's just that Fundamentalist Christians have accumulated so much political power since the 1980s, that they seem to be an overwhelming presence. But they're  not representative and should not be given more credibility than they deserve.

            © grover


            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

            by grover on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 03:45:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It goes back a bit further... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              smartalek

              than that.

              The Second Great Awakening (1790s -1850s) was a religious revival that occurred in the United States beginning in the late eighteenth century and lasting until the middle of the nineteenth century. While it occurred in all parts of the United States, it was especially strong in the Northeast and the Midwest. It is also noteworthy to point out that this awakening was unique in that it moved beyond the educated elite of New England to those that were less wealthy and less educated. The center of revivalism was the so-called Burned-over district in western New York. Named for its overabundance of hellfire-and-damnation preaching, the region produced dozens of new denominations, communal societies, and reform.

              Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

              by AuroraDawn on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 05:05:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I would be interested in some stats (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SMWalt, Leap Year

              because it seems to me that by numbers they ARE very representative if you count by worshipers and not denominations. You've got 50 at the Presbyterian church and 5,000 at the mega-church.

              Also, even within the conceptual framework of religion, LDS is ridiculous.

              •  This Pew study (3+ / 0-)

                says 26.3% affiliate with "Evangelical Protestant Churches."

                Since not all of them are Fundamentalist (the terms are NOT interchangeable. This PBS link discusses that intelligently), we can go ahead and use that as an incredibly conservative (no pun intended) number.

                Mainline Protestants are 18.1%, Catholics, 23.9%. JW, LDS, Orthodox are much smaller percentages.

                Here is the whole 2013 Pew Religion Report

                © grover


                So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                by grover on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 05:46:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Looks like I've got a lot of reading to do - what (0+ / 0-)

                  is "mainline", for example. If that merely means non-evangelical, then it isn't necessarily non-fundie.

                  That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                  by enhydra lutris on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 07:52:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Using that Philosophy degree of mine... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AuroraDawn, Wee Mama, Ahianne
      I'm sorry. I'm tired of no true Scotsman arguments.
      Actually, you're applying that incorrectly.

      The no true Scotsman logical fallacy only applies if someone is trying to exclude an entity from a group.

      If AuroraDawn had said that the parents "Weren't christians" because of what they did, then you would be right to call the argument a "No True Scotsman" argument.

      Instead, AD said "These parents aren't simply "religious", they're fanatical." AD was actually correcting a faulty syllogism made by another poster.

      Correcting faulty syllogisms is not a no true Scotsman argument, which only applies in that narrow circumstance when someone attempts to remove an inconvenient example from a data set.

      You yourself are practicing an interesting form of mind-reading, where you, an atheist, are pontificating on what Christians ought to believe. That's a bit like a non-religious person like me lecturing a buddhist about sutras.

      There's a lot of hyperbole flying around in this comment section. Hyperbole and logic don't mix well.

      An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

      by OllieGarkey on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 05:29:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site