quote:


PHILADELPHIA (AP) — After their 2-year-old son died of untreated pneumonia in 2009, faith-healing advocates Herbert and Catherine Schaible promised a judge they would not let another sick child go without medical care.
But now they've lost an 8-month-old to what a prosecutor called "eerily similar" circumstances. And instead of another involuntary manslaughter charge, they're now charged with third-degree murder.
"We believe in divine healing, that Jesus shed blood for our healing and that he died on the cross to break the devil's power," Herbert Schaible, 44, told Philadelphia homicide detectives after their ninth child, Brandon, died in April. Medicine, he said, "is against our religious beliefs."
The Schaibles were ordered held without bail Friday, two days after their arrest, although defense lawyers argued that they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
"He is incarcerated because of his faith," said lawyer Bobby Hoof, who described client Herbert Schaible's mindset as resolute.
"He's strong willed," Hoof said. "(Yet) he's mourning this son. He's hurting as any dad would."
The only people theoretically at risk are the couple's seven surviving children, who are now in foster care, the lawyers said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

http://www.collarchat.com/m_4430380/tm.htm

There ya go, LL. I really cannot fathom why they are allowed to keep the children they had after the first death.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

http://www.collarchat.com/m_4430380/tm.htm

There ya go, LL. I really cannot fathom why they are allowed to keep the children they had after the first death.

wellllllll sounds like you want to be their guardian, so lets take them to your house!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

ok so we all know they are nutty, and this is an extreme case of nutty, however it none the less proves you have no freedom to "exercise" your religion.

the question is what gives the state the right to butt into their lives and punish them any more than they have the right to go to the ME and punish some parents for stoning their child for violating their religions sexual laws?

how did they get that power?

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

This has been played out before, with Christian scientists and Jehova's witnesses, and freedom of religious belief only goes so far. When it comes to children, courts have ruled time and again parents don't have the right to risk their child's lives when treatments are available, if a kid gets into an auto accident and needs transfusions Jehova's witness parents cannot stop the hospital from giving the kid blood to save its life. As an adult, you can make that choice, but you don't have the right to risk your child's life, and rightfully so. You want to be a fool as an adult, be my guest, but with children, no.

What is really pathetic is the whole faith healing thing is non scriptural, and the bible even has sections telling believers not to tempt God, that jumping off a building hoping Jesus will save you is not what God wants. Until someone can come up with evidence that faith healing has the same success rate on curing a strep throat or bacteriological pneumonia as antibiotics, they were guilty of negligence at the very least, and definitely stupidity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The precedent was established in 1874.... you should know that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

This has been played out before, with Christian scientists and Jehova's witnesses, and freedom of religious belief only goes so far. When it comes to children, courts have ruled time and again parents don't have the right to risk their child's lives when treatments are available, if a kid gets into an auto accident and needs transfusions Jehova's witness parents cannot stop the hospital from giving the kid blood to save its life. As an adult, you can make that choice, but you don't have the right to risk your child's life, and rightfully so. You want to be a fool as an adult, be my guest, but with children, no.

What is really pathetic is the whole faith healing thing is non scriptural, and the bible even has sections telling believers not to tempt God, that jumping off a building hoping Jesus will save you is not what God wants. Until someone can come up with evidence that faith healing has the same success rate on curing a strep throat or bacteriological pneumonia as antibiotics, they were guilty of negligence at the very least, and definitely stupidity.

That's exactly the point. You are allowed to refuse medical treatment as an adult, but you can't put someone else's life at risk.

One of the bigger problems with the faith healing belief is that if God doesn't save you, that you didn't deserve it, you didn't pray hard enough, attend church often enough, etc. I have a huge problem with that and I'm a born again Christian (apparently a much more liberal and realistic thinking one, but still born again).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The precedent was established in 1874.... you should know that.

well the precedent was established for burning witches at the stake too, so what?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The precedent was established in 1874.... you should know that.

well the precedent was established for burning witches at the stake too, so what?

Yep.... thats why they got the law changed from children being the "property" of the parents to the parents being responsible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

One of the bigger problems with the faith healing belief is that if God doesn't save you, that you didn't deserve it, you didn't pray hard enough, attend church often enough, etc. I have a huge problem with that and I'm a born again Christian (apparently a much more liberal and realistic thinking one, but still born again).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The precedent was established in 1874.... you should know that.

well the precedent was established for burning witches at the stake too, so what?

Yep.... thats why they got the law changed from children being the "property" of the parents to the parents being responsible.

yes changed to property of the state.

its expected to have jurisdiction over property.