Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should faith healing be banned?

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 8:56:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
After reading http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net... I am convinced that the practice of faith healing ought to be banned -- if not for adults, at least for children.

Paul Tobin notes in that chapter:

"At Barstow, California in 1973, an eleven-year-old diabetic boy died because his parents decided that prayer and fasting, rather than modern medicine, would save him. The parents, Lawrence and Alice Parker, members of the Assemblies of God Church, actually withheld insulin from the boy.

In 1981 two members of the Faith Tabernacle Congregation, William and Linda Barnhart did not seek medical help for their two-year-old son who had abdominal tumor. They prayed and fasted for a miracle cure, but to no avail as the boy died. William Barnhart was charged with involuntary manslaughter yet all he had to say to the press was: "This haven't wavered my faith one bit."

In 1982, a nine-year-old boy of Enid, Oklahoma had a ruptured appendix. Instead of taking him to the hospital, his parents, Dean and Patsy Lockhart, together with the congregation of their church prayed for his healing. The boy needlessly died."

The study in Pediatrics mentioned above, conducted by the University of California in San Diego, examined 172 child deaths in faith-healing families spanning two decades from 1975 to 1995. It concluded that a large proportion of these deaths (more than 80%) were avoidable. In other words these children could have been saved had medical attention been sought.


Personally, I think it is disgusting and I cannot believe people like Peter Poppoff (who has been exposed as a fraud over 20 years ago) is still on television asking for money! Seriously, I saw Peter Poppoff yesterday on Televison "preaching" and "healing"!
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 9:24:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 9:03:51 AM, Koopin wrote:
You have to be joking right? If not, have you considered taking Gary Johnson off your profile picture?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 9:31:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nah bruh.

Libertarianism.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 9:38:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 9:24:41 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 9/25/2012 9:03:51 AM, Koopin wrote:
You have to be joking right? If not, have you considered taking Gary Johnson off your profile picture?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:58:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
He's not contradicting his own beliefs in any way, I believe a libertarian would support a person's right to choose as long as it does not interfere with anybody else's right to choose. That is why murder would be okay to to make illegal simply because murder takes away the victims right to choose, their right to live or die is placed in the hands of another. Faith healing does the same thing. The person who has the unfortunate experience of having some disease is getting their right to choose taken away by someone who believes their religious prayers will "heal them."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 5:25:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 4:58:08 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
He's not contradicting his own beliefs in any way, I believe a libertarian would support a person's right to choose as long as it does not interfere with anybody else's right to choose. That is why murder would be okay to to make illegal simply because murder takes away the victims right to choose, their right to live or die is placed in the hands of another. Faith healing does the same thing. The person who has the unfortunate experience of having some disease is getting their right to choose taken away by someone who believes their religious prayers will "heal them."

Beautifully put, The Bomb.

My thoughts exactly.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 7:11:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Of course it should be banned. The question is no longer what should be banned but what shouldn't be. The list of things that people want banned is endless. The list of things that shouldn't be is very short if non existent.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 8:51:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's not something you can "ban", per se. However, we should stop protecting it.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 9:01:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Faith healing shouldn't be banned. However, if a child has a terminal or extremely impactful health issue, and the parents have the capability to get him medical treatment, and they don't, it should be considered criminal negligence.

Faith healing that happens alongside regular medical treatment is fine. It is when one replaces that other that charges should be brought up.
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 9:05:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 9:01:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
Faith healing shouldn't be banned. However, if a child has a terminal or extremely impactful health issue, and the parents have the capability to get him medical treatment, and they don't, it should be considered criminal negligence.

Faith healing that happens alongside regular medical treatment is fine. It is when one replaces that other that charges should be brought up.

That's what I meant when I said it can't really be "banned". Because what are you going to ban? Praying? The problem is, in 6 states I believe, it is protected, meaning if a child dies due to lack of medical care, the parents can claim that they were trying to pray for him, and they can get off without any criminal negligence charges. If they stop protecting it, it will hold parents accountable, while still allowing them to exercise their rights by praying for their child.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 9:16:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 4:58:08 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
He's not contradicting his own beliefs in any way, I believe a libertarian would support a person's right to choose as long as it does not interfere with anybody else's right to choose. That is why murder would be okay to to make illegal simply because murder takes away the victims right to choose, their right to live or die is placed in the hands of another. Faith healing does the same thing. The person who has the unfortunate experience of having some disease is getting their right to choose taken away by someone who believes their religious prayers will "heal them."

He was not just talking about for children. He was talking about banning it outright, for adults. If I have cancer I should have the right to go to a faith healer.
kfc
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 9:20:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 9:05:48 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 9/25/2012 9:01:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
Faith healing shouldn't be banned. However, if a child has a terminal or extremely impactful health issue, and the parents have the capability to get him medical treatment, and they don't, it should be considered criminal negligence.

Faith healing that happens alongside regular medical treatment is fine. It is when one replaces that other that charges should be brought up.

That's what I meant when I said it can't really be "banned". Because what are you going to ban? Praying? The problem is, in 6 states I believe, it is protected, meaning if a child dies due to lack of medical care, the parents can claim that they were trying to pray for him, and they can get off without any criminal negligence charges. If they stop protecting it, it will hold parents accountable, while still allowing them to exercise their rights by praying for their child.

That should be it, the issue wasn't that they were faith healing, it was that they withheld insulin right?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 9:25:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 9:20:04 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 9/25/2012 9:05:48 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 9/25/2012 9:01:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
Faith healing shouldn't be banned. However, if a child has a terminal or extremely impactful health issue, and the parents have the capability to get him medical treatment, and they don't, it should be considered criminal negligence.

Faith healing that happens alongside regular medical treatment is fine. It is when one replaces that other that charges should be brought up.

That's what I meant when I said it can't really be "banned". Because what are you going to ban? Praying? The problem is, in 6 states I believe, it is protected, meaning if a child dies due to lack of medical care, the parents can claim that they were trying to pray for him, and they can get off without any criminal negligence charges. If they stop protecting it, it will hold parents accountable, while still allowing them to exercise their rights by praying for their child.

That should be it, the issue wasn't that they were faith healing, it was that they withheld insulin right?

There are multiple cases of "faith healing" causing child neglect resulting in death, the latest case I personally heard about involving a 16 year old dying of a burst appendix. Witholding insulin sounds familiar, I think I read about that happening as well.

But yes, essentially, the problem isn't that the parents are praying for their children, rather, they are replacing medical care with praying, and putting it under the umbrella of religion to get protection against legal punishment. All that needs to be done is stop recognizing "faith healing", so that whenever a child dies due to lack of medical care, and it is obvious that the parents with held that care, the parents can be punished for it, rather than being aquited because of their religious beliefs.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 9:27:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 9:16:57 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:58:08 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
He's not contradicting his own beliefs in any way, I believe a libertarian would support a person's right to choose as long as it does not interfere with anybody else's right to choose. That is why murder would be okay to to make illegal simply because murder takes away the victims right to choose, their right to live or die is placed in the hands of another. Faith healing does the same thing. The person who has the unfortunate experience of having some disease is getting their right to choose taken away by someone who believes their religious prayers will "heal them."

He was not just talking about for children. He was talking about banning it outright, for adults. If I have cancer I should have the right to go to a faith healer.

Of course you should be able to be an utter and moronic idiot. However, you have no right to impose this nonsense on others, which is why it should be banned for parent-child situations.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 9:30:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 9:27:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/25/2012 9:16:57 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:58:08 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
He's not contradicting his own beliefs in any way, I believe a libertarian would support a person's right to choose as long as it does not interfere with anybody else's right to choose. That is why murder would be okay to to make illegal simply because murder takes away the victims right to choose, their right to live or die is placed in the hands of another. Faith healing does the same thing. The person who has the unfortunate experience of having some disease is getting their right to choose taken away by someone who believes their religious prayers will "heal them."

He was not just talking about for children. He was talking about banning it outright, for adults. If I have cancer I should have the right to go to a faith healer.

Of course you should be able to be an utter and moronic idiot. However, you have no right to impose this nonsense on others, which is why it should be banned for parent-child situations.

Yes, a parent should not have the right to kill their child like that, but again, that's not what micro was saying.
kfc
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 9:30:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 9:16:57 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:58:08 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
He's not contradicting his own beliefs in any way, I believe a libertarian would support a person's right to choose as long as it does not interfere with anybody else's right to choose. That is why murder would be okay to to make illegal simply because murder takes away the victims right to choose, their right to live or die is placed in the hands of another. Faith healing does the same thing. The person who has the unfortunate experience of having some disease is getting their right to choose taken away by someone who believes their religious prayers will "heal them."

He was not just talking about for children. He was talking about banning it outright, for adults. If I have cancer I should have the right to go to a faith healer.

Unless I misread: "I am convinced that the practice of faith healing ought to be banned -- if not for adults, at least for children." So yea, you should have that right, but you should not have the right to force your beliefs on somebody else.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 9:51:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 9:25:32 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 9/25/2012 9:20:04 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 9/25/2012 9:05:48 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 9/25/2012 9:01:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
Faith healing shouldn't be banned. However, if a child has a terminal or extremely impactful health issue, and the parents have the capability to get him medical treatment, and they don't, it should be considered criminal negligence.

Faith healing that happens alongside regular medical treatment is fine. It is when one replaces that other that charges should be brought up.

That's what I meant when I said it can't really be "banned". Because what are you going to ban? Praying? The problem is, in 6 states I believe, it is protected, meaning if a child dies due to lack of medical care, the parents can claim that they were trying to pray for him, and they can get off without any criminal negligence charges. If they stop protecting it, it will hold parents accountable, while still allowing them to exercise their rights by praying for their child.

That should be it, the issue wasn't that they were faith healing, it was that they withheld insulin right?

There are multiple cases of "faith healing" causing child neglect resulting in death, the latest case I personally heard about involving a 16 year old dying of a burst appendix. Witholding insulin sounds familiar, I think I read about that happening as well.

But yes, essentially, the problem isn't that the parents are praying for their children, rather, they are replacing medical care with praying, and putting it under the umbrella of religion to get protection against legal punishment. All that needs to be done is stop recognizing "faith healing", so that whenever a child dies due to lack of medical care, and it is obvious that the parents with held that care, the parents can be punished for it, rather than being aquited because of their religious beliefs.

this, that's really fcked up that you can be acquited for something like that.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 9:58:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, because nothing about faith healing presupposes that the child cannot go to a real doctor also. Criminalize the negligence of not sending a kid to the hospital, not the faith healer.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 10:00:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 9:58:39 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
No, because nothing about faith healing presupposes that the child cannot go to a real doctor also. Criminalize the negligence of not sending a kid to the hospital, not the faith healer.

what if the faith healer specifically states that you should go to him instead of a doctor and that doctors are unnecessary. Would that be considered bannable speech?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 10:08:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 10:00:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/25/2012 9:58:39 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
No, because nothing about faith healing presupposes that the child cannot go to a real doctor also. Criminalize the negligence of not sending a kid to the hospital, not the faith healer.

what if the faith healer specifically states that you should go to him instead of a doctor and that doctors are unnecessary. Would that be considered bannable speech?

Maybe. Depending on the situation, it could constitute fraud. Depends what the faith healer promises. However it is difficult to prove fraud involving religious practices and institutions.

Like I said, it is easier and more accurate to hold the parents responsible.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 8:47:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 9:16:57 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:58:08 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
He's not contradicting his own beliefs in any way, I believe a libertarian would support a person's right to choose as long as it does not interfere with anybody else's right to choose. That is why murder would be okay to to make illegal simply because murder takes away the victims right to choose, their right to live or die is placed in the hands of another. Faith healing does the same thing. The person who has the unfortunate experience of having some disease is getting their right to choose taken away by someone who believes their religious prayers will "heal them."

He was not just talking about for children. He was talking about banning it outright, for adults. If I have cancer I should have the right to go to a faith healer.

The average joe who believes that this will work is misinformed and is being taken advantage of.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 9:32:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 8:47:16 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 9/25/2012 9:16:57 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:58:08 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
He's not contradicting his own beliefs in any way, I believe a libertarian would support a person's right to choose as long as it does not interfere with anybody else's right to choose. That is why murder would be okay to to make illegal simply because murder takes away the victims right to choose, their right to live or die is placed in the hands of another. Faith healing does the same thing. The person who has the unfortunate experience of having some disease is getting their right to choose taken away by someone who believes their religious prayers will "heal them."

He was not just talking about for children. He was talking about banning it outright, for adults. If I have cancer I should have the right to go to a faith healer.

The average joe who believes that this will work is misinformed and is being taken advantage of.

+ infinity. Welcome to my wall of fame.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 10:52:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 9:32:14 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 9/26/2012 8:47:16 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 9/25/2012 9:16:57 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:58:08 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
He's not contradicting his own beliefs in any way, I believe a libertarian would support a person's right to choose as long as it does not interfere with anybody else's right to choose. That is why murder would be okay to to make illegal simply because murder takes away the victims right to choose, their right to live or die is placed in the hands of another. Faith healing does the same thing. The person who has the unfortunate experience of having some disease is getting their right to choose taken away by someone who believes their religious prayers will "heal them."

He was not just talking about for children. He was talking about banning it outright, for adults. If I have cancer I should have the right to go to a faith healer.

The average joe who believes that this will work is misinformed and is being taken advantage of.

+ infinity. Welcome to my wall of fame.

Wow, awesome. So as long as the majority thinks that they are misinformed, it should be banned. BTW, people who think large soda's will bring them more pleasure than consequences are uninformed. It leads to diabetes. Her, der, let's ban it.
kfc
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 11:25:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 10:52:59 AM, Koopin wrote:
At 9/26/2012 9:32:14 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 9/26/2012 8:47:16 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 9/25/2012 9:16:57 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:58:08 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
He's not contradicting his own beliefs in any way, I believe a libertarian would support a person's right to choose as long as it does not interfere with anybody else's right to choose. That is why murder would be okay to to make illegal simply because murder takes away the victims right to choose, their right to live or die is placed in the hands of another. Faith healing does the same thing. The person who has the unfortunate experience of having some disease is getting their right to choose taken away by someone who believes their religious prayers will "heal them."

He was not just talking about for children. He was talking about banning it outright, for adults. If I have cancer I should have the right to go to a faith healer.

The average joe who believes that this will work is misinformed and is being taken advantage of.

+ infinity. Welcome to my wall of fame.

Wow, awesome. So as long as the majority thinks that they are misinformed, it should be banned. BTW, people who think large soda's will bring them more pleasure than consequences are uninformed. It leads to diabetes. Her, der, let's ban it.

Not the point. The point is education.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 11:30:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 11:25:11 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 9/26/2012 10:52:59 AM, Koopin wrote:
At 9/26/2012 9:32:14 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 9/26/2012 8:47:16 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 9/25/2012 9:16:57 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:58:08 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
He's not contradicting his own beliefs in any way, I believe a libertarian would support a person's right to choose as long as it does not interfere with anybody else's right to choose. That is why murder would be okay to to make illegal simply because murder takes away the victims right to choose, their right to live or die is placed in the hands of another. Faith healing does the same thing. The person who has the unfortunate experience of having some disease is getting their right to choose taken away by someone who believes their religious prayers will "heal them."

He was not just talking about for children. He was talking about banning it outright, for adults. If I have cancer I should have the right to go to a faith healer.

The average joe who believes that this will work is misinformed and is being taken advantage of.

+ infinity. Welcome to my wall of fame.

Wow, awesome. So as long as the majority thinks that they are misinformed, it should be banned. BTW, people who think large soda's will bring them more pleasure than consequences are uninformed. It leads to diabetes. Her, der, let's ban it.

Not the point. The point is education.

On the contrary, it is proven the uneducated people are fatter due to wrong choices of a healthy lifestyle.
kfc