If you want to defend the right of parents to deny their children medical care because they believe God will heal them, that's a terrible political hill to die on.
-
-
Replying to @AlanLevinovitz
My Biblical namesake was thrown to the lions for less. Ditto what the patron saint of my profession was beheaded for. Better men than I have chosen religious liberty as a hill to die on. But hey, you can't have the Maccabees without somebody eager to play the king.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Like I said, I think it's great that you're owning this position. It's honest and clear. Let people looking on judge for themselves where they think the limits of religious liberty ought to lie. And you do believe in limits—after all, "deliberately taking a life" is not allowed.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AlanLevinovitz
Now, you're finally returning from religious liberty to the actual question of morality. I do not assume, as you seem to, that religious liberty does not exist when it results in things I think are immoral.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Wasn't it you who brought up religious liberty originally? (Government, minority religions, strange, etc.) As for me, I'm just saying look, I think you're better off not making this "actively taking life" idea the core of your argument, because it leads to immoral places.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AlanLevinovitz
Under the Catholic understanding, which is widely shared in most Christian sects and among most in the Western tradition, actively refusing basic medical treatment for kids is wrong. The Christian Scientists are wrong. I just see the problem with forcing them at gunpoint.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Right. I disagree. If the state can stop a parent from breaking a kid's leg, they should stop the parent from denying them chemo. As for "religious liberty" as the deciding factor, I don't think "religion" deserves special protection.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AlanLevinovitz
...and that's why we have the First Amendment.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
It's based on a category that's far too vague. "Religion" is a famously difficult category to define, relatively modern (your namesake wouldn't have known what you meant by it). This book does an excellent job on it:https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691153612/why-tolerate-religion …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AlanLevinovitz @baseballcrank
gotta run, but really appreciate the modeling of good Twitter dialogue when I didn't deserve it...you've (hopefully) made me better at least in that regard, I won't forget it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.