Also, as for not being allowed to teach creationism privately, that would violate the free exercise clause.

No, it would not. (IIUC.)

The free exercise of religion does not cover proselytising, even if the religion requires you to bring up your children “in the faith”. After all, the bible requires that certain crimes be punished by stoning, but such activity is clearly not protected by the free exercise clause. (IIUC.)

He is saying that no one, publicly or privately, should be allowed to teach anything he disagrees with,

This is a strawman. Mram claimed no such thing. Go back and re-read what (s)he posted.

not just those things that are objectively wrong,

Actually, mram referred specifically to things that we know to be objectively wrong. Specifically, mram (94) said:

There are just certain things we KNOW to be fact, but millions of kids are being intentionally mislead with garbage science, garbage politics, garbage belief and so on..

Back to Vince RN:

and not just publicly. He would outlaw teaching anything but the straight party line of whatever his beliefs or opinions are. That’s what he means by “garbage politics”.

I think you are reading your own opinion into his/her statement.

In post 94, the term “Garbage politics” is set in opposition to things we know as fact. Thus, for instance, the politics of ID / creationism, or the politics of anti-AGW would count as “garbage politics”, because they adopt a stance that is demonstrably false. However, at no point does mram mention the teaching of things only he/she agrees with.

@Mr am – so it’s not just science and medicine, even in subjective matters like politics you want a law to prevent anyone receiving any information you disagree with?

Actually, go re-read mram’s comment. (S)he was referring not to things with which (s)he disagrees, but to things we know to be false, such as the YEC idea of the age of the earth.

I would also be happy for our civilisations to have laws that prevent the teaching (as fact) of things that are known to be false.

After all, it is not all that long since many US states were forced to repeal their laws that prevented the teaching of what was known to be the best understanding of reality (evolution), despite the religious grounds for those laws being unconstitutional (in relation to federally-funded schools).

my point is not to debate the efficacy of chemotherapy or heat therapy here; it’s to point out that reasoned, scientifically-minded people can disagree with the accepted medical standards of the time.

This is not to say that chemotherapy doesn’t work.

Because cancers are so variable, it is a judgement call about which treatment is the most likely to be effective.

Were I the parent of a child diagnosed with cancer, and were I to consult with medical professionals in Germany (where heat therapy is used much more than here) and decide to take my child there for that treatment, could I be charged with murder if the child died?

No, because you are still obtaining professional medical care for the child.

I don’t see that this bill will really serve as a deterrent. Parents who choose faith healing choose it because they believe it will work – if they thought their kid was going to die if they didn’t go to the hospital, they would go to the hospital.

I just don’t see people thinking to themselves, “I should get my child medical care because if they die I could go to jail”. Going to jail after your kid dies isn’t that much scarier than having your kid die and getting off scot free – losing a child is already the parent’s worst nightmare come true.

If dead child isn’t an adequate deterrent, jail won’t be either.

True, but our western justice systems are all about punishment rather than deterrence (IIUC, harsher penalties for crime do not correlate with lower crime rates).

“The UK certifies faith healers?”

No, woo-mongering whackjobs form organisations to certify each other. Then when someone calls them on their lies, they try and sue: google ‘simon singh libel’

In a sane world, they wouldn’t be certified, they’d be sectioned. [For non-UK folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectioned

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/abortion_needs_to_be_taught_in.php

that really should be read.

A woman nearly died – and the one competent and good doctor who saved her life no doubt faces daily death threats and the vicious misogynist rage of bigots who would rather see women die than allow them to have choices when it comes their very own bodies.

Deterrence is not the only purpose of criminal law. By eliminating the “faith-healing” exemption from child neglect prosecution, Oregon will express its disgust with parents who hide behind their faith to deny medical treatment to their children. As another poster said, the existence of the law will affect how the child protection services evaluate parents’ competence as well.

@Jim
The UK certifies faith healers? As in, people who don’t actually provide any medically effective treatment? Why? What special training does faith healing require? What risk is there from “incompetent” faith healers?

Faith healing in conjunction with the health service, hmm? It sounds about as useful as performing dowsing in conjunction with a science-based search for an oil deposit.

Besides which, the prospect of a long prison sentence might do the trick for a lot of these parents. It’s easier to be devout when someone else is paying the price than when you will have to answer personally for it.

Also, as for not being allowed to teach creationism privately, that would violate the free exercise clause. He is saying that no one, publicly or privately, should be allowed to teach anything he disagrees with, not just those things that are objectively wrong, and not just publicly. He would outlaw teaching anything but the straight party line of whatever his beliefs or opinions are. That’s what he means by “garbage politics”.

If I were the sort that wanted my kids taught that it’s turtle’s all the way down the government should not be allowed to stop me. How ever, since that would be a religious teaching the public schools can not teach kids about the turtles in science class.

I don’t see that this bill will really serve as a deterrent. Parents who choose faith healing choose it because they believe it will work – if they thought their kid was going to die if they didn’t go to the hospital, they would go to the hospital.

The logical, skeptical side of me rails against this viewpoint. But the pragmatic side of me says that Catherine is spot on. One fundie family will serve as a test case for this new law. Then the rest of the blighters will move out of Oregon.

Perhaps that is the intent? /sarc

And how is Creationism not politics these days? It certainly isn’t science, no matter what it’s supporters are trying to pull…

VinceRN Says:
May 27th, 2011 at 11:53 am

@Mr am – so it’s not just science and medicine, even in subjective matters like politics you want a law to prevent anyone receiving any information you disagree with?

He wasn’t talking about politics, he was talking about creationism.

I just don’t see people thinking to themselves, “I should get my child medical care because if they die I could go to jail”. Going to jail after your kid dies isn’t that much scarier than having your kid die and getting off scot free – losing a child is already the parent’s worst nightmare come true.

If dead child isn’t an adequate deterrent, jail won’t be either.

Mountains higher than 806 feet? A distinct scarcity of alligators? A lack of a hurricane season (or in the case of last year, any season at all other than fall)?

“Let me clarify: Since I believe in a higher power, I believe that that higher power bestowed knowledge and intelligence on us in varying degrees…”

That’s just downright cruel of a god to do. “And the Lord said, ‘YOU get to be a supergenius; YOU get to be kinda smart; and YOU, well, you’ll be lucky if you can string two coherent sentences together.’ ”

Not that a godless universe is necessarily nicer, but at least it’s not purposefully capricious!