Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Wisconsin couple found guilty of causing the daughter's death

I read a bit of one of the blogs you posted a link to, Vicki. In that blog you could read this:

My impression is that the person writing this blog wants to define children as the domain of their parents, and not wards of the state.

I disagree with that sentiment. Indeed, 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.

This is not the case in the Muslim civilization. Here every person is a property of his or her (extended) family. When a person is murdered, the state will not automatically punish the murderer. Instead, the state will ask the bereaved family if the family wants to punish the murderer. If the family wants the murderer to be killed, he will be killed. But if the family is willing to pardon the murderer, the murderer will be pardoned.

Now bear in mind that the family may kill one of its own. It may, for example, decide to execute one of its young girls whose behaviour it disapproves of. So the family kills the girl. And what does the state do? Since the family who committed the killing is also the party injured by the girl's death, the family will be asked if it wants to punish itself for killing the girl, or if it wants to pardon itself. It will come as no surprise that the families will almost always pardon themselves.

Conclusion? The girl has no protection if her family kills her. Her family wants to see her dead, and the state doesn't care.

The family can kill girls (and boys) through other means, for example through negligence. The family can decide to favour one of its children and spend all its resources on this favorite child. At the same time, it may starve its other children and refuse to give them medical care, etcetera.

Personally, I think it is critical for a civilized society that children are not considered the sole property of their parents, to treat and deal with according to the parents' religious beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.

Let me say a few words about faith healing. I am, as many of you know, not a religous person, so I don't believe in faith healing. But I am very well aware that in the Gospels, Jesus cures many sick people through faith healing. So is it any wonder that religious people may want to practise faith healing and pray for their sick ones? Of course not! Is it wrong to pray for sick people? Oh, no, no! How could that possibly be wrong?

But here's what I don't understand. Why would it be forbidden to pray for your sick ones and take them to the hospital? Where in the Bible does it say that modern medicine is viewed unfavorably by God? Where does it say that you must choose between prayer and modern medicine?

I think society is right to insist that parents don't own their children's lives and are not allowed to endanger their children's lives through gross negligence. I'm glad to see that according to the blog you referred to, most Americans seem to share my feelings:

I'm not going to discuss what punishment the Wisconsin couple should have, but I'm glad, as I said, that they were found guilty of causing their daughter's death by a court of the United States.

Ann