Ann wrote:
I would go so far as to say that one reason why the Western and Christian world is more civilized than the Muslim world is that in our world, everyone is a "ward of the state". We are, as it were, the "property" of the state. That means that if someone kills us, either through deliberate murder or through gross negligence, that person is committing a crime against the state. The state has been robbed of one of its most prescious assets, a human life. Since the taking of a life is a crime against the state, the state can't tolerate it.
No. It is not true that everyone is a ward of the state. That would mean that the state would be responsible for feeding, clothing, housing, training, and caring for each and every one of its citizens. And the American legal structure makes it clear that parents are primarily responsible for taking care of their children, especially before they are able to care for themselves in the adult world.
You can make a strong case that taking a life by "deliberate murder or through gross negligence" is a crime against
society, which is an entity quite separate from the state. Society establishes the mode of living for a people or people group, while the state establishes the legal framework by which this mode of living is maintained. They are not at all the same thing.
For example, let me quote from the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This Constitution was intended to maintain the society in which it was written, not to care for all of the needs and wants of its individual citizens. The American government was originally intended to be the servant of its citizens, not their nanny.
To return to the original question posed, let me ask a question in response. If parents do not own their children's lives (and I believe that they do not), who does?
No one but the child. Neither the parents nor the state own the child. When a child reaches adulthood, the child must then live and behave as an adult or face the consequences of not doing so (inability to hold a job, no strong emotional ties, irresponsible behavior towards family, etc.).
That does not mean that parents are absolved from the responsibility of raising their children. As parents, we are charged with feeding, clothing, sheltering, teaching, and shaping our children to face adulthood responsibly. If we're not, then those Wisconsin parents are not responsible for what happened to their daughter. But they were and are.
That also does not mean that just anyone, whether from the government or from the local religious body, can waltz into someone's home and tell a child's parents that they cannot exercise their religious beliefs in regard to their children. This girl died of complications from untreated diabetes, a condition which could have (and definitely should have) been treated by physicians.
We must be careful, however, not to paint with too broad a brush here. It is true that they chose to pray for their daughter rather than seek medical help. That does not mean that all who pray for their sick children might cause their deaths. The New Testament records no pronouncements about people avoiding medical assistance when ill, and in fact on at least two occasions commends seeking external medical help. We must also remember that Luke, writer of two of the New Testament books, was himself a medical doctor, and nowhere is it recorded that he gave up that line of work. He just moved his office.
As far as the family's religious affiliation is concerned:
The family does not attend an organized church or participate in an organized religion, Vergin said. "They have a little Bible study of a few people."
(story found here)My point here is that their beliefs do not correspond to those of most Christians. Ann is correct when she asks where in the Bible that modern medicine is "...viewed unfavorably by God" and strongly implies that such sentiments do not appear. And I make no accusation towards anyone who has posted here to imply that anyone in this thread has attempted to condemn all Christians for the misguided acts of a few, because no one has done so.
To conclude, I believe that the Wisconsin couple was completely wrong in not seeking medical treatment for their daughter. Failure to help those in need
is something that is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, and that is what they did. When my daughter got sick a couple of years ago, I took her to the doctor, and he told us that she had the flu. She took the medicine he prescribed and after a few days she got better. Had I only stayed home and prayed for her, I doubt that she would have gotten better. And it's not because I doubt God. I simply know that healings are called "miracles" for a reason. If anyone could be "miraculously" healed at any time, then they'd be called "usuals" instead.
