Anyone can change a subject line within a thread, and that's what happened in this case.

I don't have any problems with that, Helice. Its just that I go by the right-hand side-bar, which doesn't get changed so it gets confusing. If no one has an objection, I'll change the subject back to "Your Beliefs vs the State" which seems to be radically different than "God already has said what He means - period." If the original subject has died, anybody can change it back and I'll just forget about it.

Bad Bird: You said...

then why is this in the Christian Forum?

Just because somebody puts the label on themselves and say they are Christain, doesn't make them one. When the state acting from a non religious platform, will put these folks in the same catagory as what they think is Christian.

Get this straight, I don't agree with these people for two reasons, 1. they didn't do what is right 2. what they did is not bilbical and is not what a real Christian would do.

Concerning the state verses God, I believe God trumps the state. The state doesn't think so. The whole issue here is what does God think about this matter?

You and anyone who is not Christian will automatically take the state's side because you don't believe in God or anything about what He represents. You assume these folks are "believers"....
"There is nothing to be gained from trying to understand why this particular religious group (who just happened to be Christians, or semi-Christians, or whatever) took the inaction that they did. It simply isn’t relevant to the the relationship between the state and believers, no matter what they believe in"

What I am more concerned with is the current that is sucking our contries into keeping God out of everything including medicine when the whole law system was based on the Bible and it's laws just 60 years ago. Contrast the 1950's with today and you see a big errosion of what made us great in the world. We are at every instance using every scenario to throw out God in everything and this case is a perfect example.

I don't think these people were right in their decision. Should they be penalized.....? On what grounds?

You said...


This affects me even though I don't agree with them. If they are punished for their beliefs, then I can be punished for my beliefs. At one time our countries trusted in God, so the money says. The Laws were based on the Ten Commandments but a few minorites have managed to cause such a stir that people can't say a prayer for their football team and ask that everyone get home safely after the game, when the majority are Chrisian. Call a lawyer. So much for democracy. the same in schools where people are forced to be fed the "evolution theory" in contrast to the creation account, when the majority believe in the creation. Call a lawyer and punish the guilty party.

So we come to these people who think they are Christian and as you point out in the quote above, it's verses "them and the state". Who made the law for the majority? The Ten Commandments were emblazoned on all of the judicial buildings and the Bible was the book on which everyone swore an oath because the system was based on the Christian God. Even you who are trying to be unbiased , put "them" in the category of "those christians" or "semi-christians" or just "beleivers" which encompasses them all. Nero did that. I then, am put in their category, only by mention of the word God when I don't even believe what they do.

It's "them or us" attitude by both sides and what is at stake is our freedom of religion. Bit by bit, the erosion is taking God totally out of the picture to a totally secular state like Russia or China.

What would be a good penalty to set a precedent for our countries concerning this problem in the first post? Religion is a factor and the child that died is the club being used to get rid of religion.

-thinker-

If you will look in the forums list, you will see that this thread is in Pagan Circle! By definition, it is not a Christian Forum.

But I'm not the moderator, so I didn't change your new version of the thread topic back to the original subject.

However, you did sum up your position regarding the topic when you said,


Which God? It should have been clear that I was intentionally being non-specific. You even quoted my position when you said,


Why should Christians have a different relationship with the state than other believers?

and,
FYI: Today, finally, Texas has issued warrants for the arrest of five male members of the group in question, charging specific offenses. Their whereabouts are unknown. When and if they are apprehended and tried we will find out what Texas thinks a good penalty would be and, after all the appeals are exhausted, what the country thinks is a good penalty.

As for "--the child that died is the club being used to get rid of religion"; perhaps it is. Just as the death of an innocent passer-by killed as a result of gang warfare might be used to get rid of the gangs. (Don't carry that simile too far, I wasn't intending to draw parallels between gangs and religious groups. It was just the first one that popped into my mind. )

Sorry, BB, but actually, this thread isn't in the Pagan Circle, this one is "Christians in the World". There was a similar thread in the other forum, from whence comes your confusion, I think.

I could swear that I found it in Pagan Circle last night, but you are right, it is in "Christians in the World". My mistake, I guess. It probably should have been in Interfaith, I suppose. My bad.

In any event, my other comments regarding the subject not being an attack on Christianity still stand.

If you could, and would like to, move it to Interfaith that would probably be appropriate.

Bad Bird: I truly find this subject very interesting. On one hand we have parents who believe doing nothing but counting on their God to rectify a problem and the child dies. Either "the God" didn't hear the prayers or "the God" wasn't in the matter in the first place.

A big hallabaloo is made over this because these people are religious of some sort. The reason it hits the headlines is because the word "christian" is attached to it and the overtones is to besmirch the religious wackos. If the same thing is done from ignorance and the child dies, then nothing is said.

You said...

They will get what the "law" affords them. But looking from the other side, why is it the state can refuse 1000's of people medical care because they don't like the doctor?

There is no shortage of stories where people die all of the time because they were denied health care.

Here is one story that covers everything. It has religion because the doctor is also a minister and he takes care of people who can't drive or go to the doctors office and they are the poorest in the USA. Imagine house calls for the poor and needy.

Wanderingspryte would like this one...

http://www.arpaincoalition.com/

http://www.cpmission.com/main/painpolitics/myers.html

Do you have the same compassion in regards to the boy that died involving a religious sect with the 1,000's who are denied help in this story? Many families are at risk in this story including small children if you look at the videos. What about helping them with the law of the state?

-thinker-

I'm aware of the situation in Mississipi regarding this pain doctor's malpractice insurance cancellation. Someone (probably you) posted a link to web-site a couple of months ago on the same subject, which I read carefully.

Yes, I do have compassion for the doctor and his patients' plight. His religious connection is irrelevant, but he obviously has strong beliefs concerning his obligation to help poor people in pain. Those beliefs are in conflict with the actions of the insurance organization set up by the state.

In my opinion, insurance companies make many decisions that are inequitable. My insurance, for instance, would not cover dialysis in the event that it was needed to sustain my life. It is expensive, so they won't cover it--along with a number of other similar medical problems.

I suspect that the locale where this is occurring, Mississippi, might be a factor. The fact that this African-American doctor (who claims never to have had a malpractice suit in his 17 years of treating poor people--in an essentially all African-American district--with prescription pain-killers) cannot get legally-required malpractice insurance means that he has de facto had his license revoked for no sound reason. Great example of "Beliefs vs The State".

I noticed that the web-sites that you posted seem to have been inactive over the last two or three years. Do you have a knowledge of where the issue has gone?

As a secondary, but related issue, I wonder what happened to the doctor(s?) that were issuing painkiller prescriptions to Rush Limbaugh and other high profile persons? Does the State think that the now-unlicensed African-American doctor was issuing prescription pain killers indiscriminately? If so, why was he not charge with that?

About the only thing we can do to get the insurance inequities under control is to consider how various candidates for public office view insurance reform when casting our votes.

Bad Bird: I only picked this doctor because of his association with religion. I don't belong to or accept his brand of religion but because he is religious and black and giving help to the poor, they wont cover the drugs he prescribes. We are not talking about expensive procedures here.

The doctor cannot do anything unless he has malpractise insurance. That includes access to hospitals. In other words, they don't want these people to have access to medicine or the hospitals and the way they cut them off is by not giving malpractise insurance to this doctor.

He is not the only one if you care to make a search. All over the USA and in Canada these doctors are being subjected to this kind of treatment, saying they are just legalized drug pushers.

If you follow the story, many people commit suicide because they can't endure the pain with conventional drugs like acetominophen and tylonal. In other words, the people in control are selective as to who get's what.

It seems ironic then that when a family with religious beliefs deny a certain treatment for a child, there is a great halabaloo but flip the coin and when thousands are denied treatment in something else that is not expensive, then we just read over it.

The insurance companies are controled by the Government as is the FDA and what you get is not necessarily the best or even good, but that's all your going to get even when it causes death.

The drug companies support the different Politicians in their endevors, so it is beneficial for the Politicians to give the drug companies what they want. This includes the insurance companies.

You asked...

That's an interesting point. We had a doctor run out of Cznada and it hit one of the documentary shows on TV over this very thing. He went to the States to practise. Some people were getting vast amonuts of painkillers just to function normally, where this amount would kill somebody else. They interviewed the patients who came from every walk of life, and some who could afford it, had to resort to illegal drugs just to cope with the pain. The only other way to be relieved from the pain is commit suicide.

This particular doctor discovered this quite by accident when an overdose would have killed a person, which made them well. Imagin getting the wrong quantity of medication and instead of killing you it makes you well.

When you investigate this subject you see thousands who are misdiagnosed or given the wrong drug which kills them. But we have the proclivity to zero in on a religious belief that kills one child. Both are a very sad state of affairs but lets give each equal time. The overtone in the first post has to do with religion more then anything else.

-thinker-

That was intentional, thinker. When I brought the subject up it was not so much about the medical aspects as it was about the general subject of how the state and religion interact when when their laws and beliefs are at odds. Polygamy, taxation, abortion (oops, thats medical, isn't it), military service; whatever.

Universal availability of good health care is, as you discussed, a real problem. It might be deserving of its own thread.