Do you agree with this statement?

Question

"A child's welfare trumps a family's religious beliefs."

REMEMBER that there are so many different scenarios that can relate to that statement, and also keep in mind that a "child's welfare" doesn't always have to mean that the situation is exceptionally dangerous, depending on your views.

GIVE EXAMPLES, I want to know your reasons behind your opinion.

Thanks.

Answer 1

Well, since I am not a religious person, I feel my answer will be very different from someone who holds strong religious beliefs. I agree that a child's welfare comes before a family's religious beliefs, whatever those may be and regardless of the situation. If you have a child, his or her well being comes before ANYTHING else. Children rely on adults to care for them, and, as they get older, assist and guide them in making rational decisions. I believe people's judgement is often clouded by religion, not necessarily in a bad way, just clouded in general. If that means that you make decisions that are not good for your child, then the child's welfare should come first.

When I think of all the things that people do in the name of religion, it makes me cringe. Yet many of them firmly believe what they are doing is right and just. Did the woman who blew herself up as a suicide bomber do the right thing by her children(ages one and 3) when she killed herself for her beliefs? Do the people that practice polygamy in that religious cult in the West put their children's welfare ahead of their beliefs when they marry off young girls of 11 and12 to old men ? Yet, in both these examples, apparently their religion is more important than what is best for their children.

I'm sure your question will get lots of interesting and differing answers. This is just my 2 cents worth!

Answer 2

Bakem raises a couple of interesting points, and I would have to agree that people have done things in the name of religion that would make me cringe as well. Most of these are done out of ignorance. They may believe that what they believe is true, but God would disagree. Doing intentional harm to an innocent person is always wrong.
There are religious orders that forbid such things as blood transfusion. Yet if God gave man the ability to learn, then should not the ability to transfer blood from a donor to the one who needs it not be seen as a gift of life at whose roots is the wisdom and blessings of God? There are doctors today who know full well that after they have done their best, only God can intervene to make the difference. While a child's welfare should come first, a true understanding of what God, or a religion might want should go hand in hand with what is best for the child's well being. Healing and life are the clarion call from God, and a true belief and understanding from Christians. Anything that would bring harm to a child that is not in harmony with the call for life and healing, is man's warped idea and is counter to the true desire of God.

Answer 3

Wow,tough one.Religious beliefs are constitutionally protected.The state is charged with protecting minors,even from thier parents.So your statement would only be true when religious beliefs place a child in imminent danger.Some Amish sects isolate thier children from much of society,ostensibly for religious reasons. This does ensure the continuation of their way of life,and seems overly controlling to outsiders.But is it harmful?No,I dont think so.The withholding of medical treatment has been an issue [not by the Amish,they obviously love their children]and the states have stepped in ,in some instances.This seems a distinctly American conundrum,considering separation of church and state.I'll be interested in others,more informed, responses

Answer 4

Is this your homework assignment?

Answer 5

uh huh sure all I know is that i like babes in thongs!!!!!!!