Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
Some years back there was a case in a nearby Ohio town where a child was home with a lingering illness for several weeks. The family went to a UPC church in that town where the pastor (a district presbyter) preached against medicine and doctors. He had a policy that he would not go into a hospital to pray for people. However, he did wear glasses. The court intervened and the child received medication and recovered. When the judge asked the mother why she did not take her child to a doctor she replied, "I took Him to Jesus who is the Best Doctor I know of."
Was it right that a civil government over rode the wish of a parent and forced medical treatment of the child? Part of me says, "yes," and part of me says, "no." I have some problems with both sides of this situation.
|
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
They MUST be free to live according to their religious beliefs.
We want to intervene when their religious actions do not make sense to us.
Then the person down the road wants to intervene when your religious actions don't make sense to them.
With all the talk on forums of the "slippery slope"... this is, indeed, a dangerous and slippery slope.
Either the Constitution is the law of the land or it isn't. Either we obey it or we throw it out.
The latter is, increasingly, becoming the trend.
Threaded Mode
