|
There's also the issue that terms like "negligent" and "reckless" are used colloquially in different ways from their legal meanings, often as a synonym for "wrong." When the issue revolves around a court case, it isn't nit-picking to point out that certain behavior does not meet the legal definitions. What the standard for recklessness is and what it ought to be are different discussions. In this case, as much as I might find binding religious arbitration wrong and distasteful, the question of wheter it is legal and whether the deceased agreed to it were never in dispute. Arguing that something ought to be illegal is different from arguing that the court found incorrectly or that the mother's right to freedom of religion was violated.
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What does whether the patient's participation is voluntary or not have to do with whether it should be legal for someone advertising themselves as a treatment center to give proven harmful medical or psychological advice. quote:I... understand that I have civil rights [for]... exercising the religion of my choice. Teen Challenge is an evangelical Christian discipleship ministry for people with life-controlling problems. As such, I realize and submit to the ministry’s expectations to attend Christian religious activities coordinated by the ministry... I fully understand my rights and what I am waiving.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
But, again, there is no allegation that Christian values were offered as medical advice. Christian values have not been proved medically harmful, and even if they were statistically correlated, I wouldn't find that sufficient grounds to curtail someone's freedom of religion. (If we're abandoning the concept of freedom of belief, that's a whole different discussion.) I think you're treading on dangerous ground. If a Reiki practitioner claimed that their technique was just as effective in treating tumors as chemo, I would agree that false claims such as that should be illegal. But if a religious leader tells his followers that God forbids blood transfusions, as Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses' believe, should he be arrested for giving bad medical advice?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You're conflating several things here. You're conflating "don't be gay" with "Christian values", those aren't the same thing at all. Also, a lot of rehab centers, including this one, don't claim to provide medical treatment. They explicitly billed themselves as a "Christian discipleship ministry for people with life-controlling problems." As far as I can tell, Nicklaus was never in a patient relationship with anyone counseling him about his homosexuality.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Yeah, but if you say that police bigotry against furries is a problem because furries are one hundred times more likely to be arrested than non-furries, I don't think I should have to state that I agree with you before pointing out that it isn't true. That's just a lazy cop-out to insist that people agree with your premise before they're allowed to question your facts.E-Tank posted:Was it our place to dictate that their values were wrong when they held up beliefs that slavery was just jim crackin dandy? Mandy Thompson posted:I am in a position where I am both a Christian and a gay person who has experienced quite a bit of hostility when I was growing up from Fundamentalists. I didn't get to choose as a child to be hated or to be taught this hate for myself. I think it is absolutely our place to call out injustice where we see it. I don't think it i remotely okay to try to change people's sexual orientation no matter what the excuse is. Hate is not a family value and they have been granted a position to force it on people and I think it is a great wrong that we condone people saying to some marginalized groups that God doesn't love them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If you disagree with the premise, argue against the premise instead of engaging in propaganda bullshit. Mandy Thompson posted:It is when they are taking over part of the state's job. When people are sent there by courts, it for instance, absolutely should not be okay to force anti-gay conversions, something that there is universal consensus among psychiatrists is unethical, dangerous, and harmful. Second, Teen Challenge is not acting on behalf of or in place of the state. They are not a part of the criminal justice system. Unless I'm mistaken, Nicklaus was set to go to jail for violating his DUI probation, but asked the prosecutor and judge to suspend the sentence on the condition that he complete Teen Challenge's program, which Nicklaus' family selected. The prosecutor and judge agreed. The judge could not, on his own, compel someone to attend Teen Challenge. If you owe $500 in fines, but convince the court to suspend your sentence as long as you complete 50 hours of community service with Habitat for Humanity, Habitat does not magically become a state actor.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
Speaking of which, can we get a thread title change, since it's not true?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 23:24
|
|