Should Faith Healing be Illegal? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Should Faith Healing be Illegal?
in Religion

I think faith healing should be made illegal because it endangers people need real medical care that is being prevented by a indoctrinated way that claims to "Heal" the sick when that's not true and has resulted in people dying
  1. Live Poll

    Should Faith Healing be Illegal?

    6 votes
    1. Yes
      83.33%
    2. No
      16.67%
https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

Socialism/Communism are great on paper, but all you need to do is look at Venezuela or North Korea see why these economic systems fail

Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Yes, mostly when minors or vulnerable individuals are involved... But if an adult prefers to pray for his own healing rather than go see a doctor, I'd say yeah for natural selection! 
    Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • I'm a christian, but even with my beliefs, I would rather kill myself than suffer the long lasting pain that I would endure if I tried to be cured from any disease using faith! It's not a miracle if they are healed from faith, it's their bodies that did the work.
    Polaris95Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • People should be able to choose any way of healing they want. If they prefer to trust their future into shamanistic rituals over rigorous science, it is their choice. In a way, I would even encourage them to do so, as in the long run the natural selection will lead to their numbers dwindling.

    As far as children's healing goes, it is a very complicated manner. We still have not quite figured out where parental rights end and where children's rights start. I do not think the government should be involved in the process either way, but I do think that children should be able to refuse the "faith healing" in favor of the proper medicine - and sue their parents in case they keep insisting.

    I also do not think "faith healing" is very common; in fact, I had not heard of this term before this post. Granted, I live in a relatively secular region of the country, so my observations could be influenced by the selection bias.
    Zombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    edited February 21
    Yes it should and heavy fines and jail sentences should be meted  out for those involved in its practice. One only has to look at the damage this practice causes in African countries alone where practitioners of this nonsense are many and varied , China also since it embraced Christianity has seen a rapid rise in the practice .

    These charlatans claim to heal the sick doing further damage as the poor unfortunates place faith in their powers .

    Its astonishing to me when I hear people say “ oh well it’s their choice “ or “ live and live “ etc , etc , if we were talking about a dodgy doctor without a degree who was treating the ill we would be outraged and call for the severest of punishments so why are faith healers exempt from being treated the same way?
  • AmpersandAmpersand 548 Pts
    edited February 21
    It is illegal and immoral to missell goods and services and in the case of important services like healthcare it's very harmful too. If I tried to sell someone some snake-oil that supposedly cured all ills, that would be illegal. Simply saying it is divine snake oil doesn't change that equation.
  • @Dee

    Not at all. If you have consented to being treated by a doctor without a degree, then all the power to you. In fact, a lot of people in large cities of the US do use the services of formally degree-less dentists (who have practised dentistry at their home country without a license, then moved to the US) on the black market, as it is much cheaper than having one's teeth fixed in a licensed clinic.

    Just because some people who support free choice on a free market are hypocrites, does not mean all of us are.

  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    You say .....Not at all. If you have consented to being treated by a doctor without a degree, then all the power to you

    My reply .....Who consents to going to a doctor without a degree? I’ve yet to hear of anyone who sick seeking the services of an unqualified doctor .
    Your country seems to be very strange as in people also seek out unqualified dentists also.

    I stand by my original position as in these faith healers and quacks cause untold damage especially in places like Africa where the practice is widespread  , you seem to have no hassle at a person who is gravely falling for the patter of one of theses charlatans who only aim is to fleece his/her victims , so you think there should be no penalties for a person masquerading as a doctor either? Wow 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1276 Pts
    edited February 21
    @Dee

    My country is the US. I have talked to several people in NYC who have specifically sought the services of unqualified dentists on the black market, because this way you can have your teeth fixed for $50, as opposed to $1000.

    As for your second point, people should take responsibility for their actions. If someone is naive enough to fall for charlatans promising miracles in exchange for some donations to the church and "praying", then I have no problem with them paying the price for their naivety. 

    Now, if I did pay for the services of a qualified doctor in a licensed hospital, only to be treated by a person with no degree and experience - then that is a different matter entirely. This is a financial fraud, and I can sue them and easily get a significant financial compensation.

    One of the cruxes of the private healthcare is that you do not pay for the outcome - you pay for the services, that may or may not lead to the desired outcome (if you read the contracts you sign, then you will see a lot of text saying something along the lines of "The success rate of this procedure is over 96%"). If you want to secure the outcome, then that is the health insurance domain, not the healthcare domain.
    As a consequence, "faith healing" may or may not be a fraud. It is scientifically a bogus, but depending on the exact terms of the contract, it may be a valid economical service.
  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    @MayCaesar


    >My country is the US. I have talked to several people in NYC who have specifically sought the services of unqualified dentists on the black market, because this way you can have your teeth fixed for $50, as opposed to $1000.


    It never happens here and anyway in the bigger picture it’s not relevant to our conversation 


    >As for your second point, people should take responsibility for their actions. If someone is naive enough to fall for charlatans promising miracles in exchange for some donations to the church and "praying", then I have no problem with them paying the price for their naivety. 


    Yes they should take responsibility but do you not see how the very sick might fall victim to this?, Or how the deeply religious are duped by accepting the  word of those they trust , it’s baffling to me that you have no problem with them paying but mention not once that the peddlers of such  nonsense deserved to be punished 


    > Now, if I did pay for the services of a qualified doctor in a licensed hospital, only to be treated by a person with no degree and experience - then that is a different matter entirely. This is a financial fraud, and I can sue them and easily get a significant financial compensation.


    Who in their right mind uses an unqualified doctor or one who has not been recommended?


    >One of the cruxes of the private healthcare is that you do not pay for the outcome - you pay for the services, that may or may not lead to the desired outcome (if you read the contracts you sign, then you will see a lot of text saying something along the lines of "The success rate of this procedure is over 96%"). If you want to secure the outcome, then that is the health insurance domain, not the healthcare domain.


    You pay hoping for a favorable outcome in a procedure carried out by qualified people 


    >As a consequence, "faith healing" may or may not be a fraud. It is scientifically a bogus, but depending on the exact terms of the contract, it may be a valid economical service.


    It’s a fraud , it’s bogus and it’s a con to claim it may be a valid economical service is nonsense 

  • @Dee

    There is no "deserve" in economics. You do not deserve anything. What you can get, you get. What you cannot, is not yours.
    "Deserve" is an emotional category and has no place in serious discussions.

    A fraud is the mismatch between the promised and provided service. Depending on what exactly the "faith healer" stated in the contract, this may or may not be the case. If the faith healer simply provided you with a prayer platform for your money and did not take any contractual obligation for actually delivering the desired outcome, then everything is legitimate, and it is only your problem that you do not understand what exactly you are paying for.

    The natural selection filters out people who live in the dissonance with reality over time. This mechanism is the reason we no longer live in caves. If someone cannot tell a bogus idea from a valid theory, then let them be filtered out; we will all be better off as a society in the end.

    We live in the age of information nowadays. Open your browser, and you have access for more knowledge than anyone had at any point in the human history. Nurturing proper use of this information and filtering out dunces is the best way to go forward. Someone listened to a preacher, followed his advice and died? Well, maybe they should have spent more time learning something about the world, and less time going to churches and reading ancient outdated books. The world does not protect people from their stupidity, nor should it.
  • @MayCaesar: Your Libertarianism is scary! You say the U.S. is your country, but you live in a fantasy world where people have any "right" they think up that will suit their twisted idea of "freedom".
    We NEED tests and licenses to show qualifications, and laws that punish those who practice ANYTHING they are not qualified for. (That harms other people).
    Regulations are NOT to make doing business "too expensive", or to control a business. They are TO PROTECT the PEOPLE from unscrupulous capitalists, charlatans, and con artists! We just CAN'T put blind trust in just ANYONE. Freedom has always come at a cost and if it costs a little to see that we, the people, are protected when we need it, well, that's the cost of doing business … fairly! 
  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    @MayCaesar


    >There is no "deserve" in economics. 


    I never claimed there was 



    >You do not deserve anything. 


    I do , I deserve to be treated with respect in my place of work etc , etc


    >What you can get, you get


    No , what you choose to get you can get 


    . > What you cannot, is not yours.


    Your wallet is stolen , you cannot get it but it yours 



    >”Deserve" is an emotional category and has no place in serious discussions.


    Deserve is not an emotional category it’s merely a word meaning , merit , want entitle 


    >A fraud is the mismatch between the promised and provided service. 


    It’s not , where do you get this gobbledygook from?


    Fraud ......


    wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.




    > Depending on what exactly the "faith healer" stated in the contract, this may or may not be the case. 


    Contract? What are you talking about? 


    A faith healers title is the giveaway here as in he /she heals through faith which is fraud 


    >If the faith healer simply provided you with a prayer platform for your money and did not take any contractual obligation for actually delivering the desired outcome, then everything is legitimate, and it is only your problem that you do not understand what exactly you are paying for.


    Your attempts at changing what’s obvious fraud to something else is hilarious , why have you such a soft spot for charlatans?


    >The natural selection filters out people who live in the dissonance with reality over time. This mechanism is the reason we no longer live in caves. If someone cannot tell a bogus idea from a valid theory, then let them be filtered out; we will all be better off as a society in the end.


    Yes of course you’re correct let the sick , vulnerable and old fall prey to sweet talking purveyors of religious nonsense it’s all for the good 




    > We live in the age of information nowadays. Open your browser, and you have access for more knowledge than anyone had at any point in the human history. Nurturing proper use of this information and filtering out dunces is the best way to go forward. Someone listened to a preacher, followed his advice and died? Well, maybe they should have spent more time learning something about the world, and less time going to churches and reading ancient outdated books. The world does not protect people from their stupidity, nor should it.


    Yes let the indoctrinated see the foolishness of their  ways , you do realise the process of indoctrination starts in infancy mostly or do you?


  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    @AlofRI

    Is Mayceaser the face of modern America if so I agree it’s truly scary and you’re spot on about the term freedom as it seems anything goes once it doesn’t upset every con man , crook and charlatans idea of freedom 


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1276 Pts
    edited February 21
    @AlofRI

    "I am taking away your freedoms, and that is for your own protection" - this sounds very familiar.

    Who or what you put trust in is up to you. I trust the scientific method and facts. Other people may put their trust in fairy tales, "get rich quick" schemes, etc. I have no problem with it; in fact, it benefits me, giving me a strong edge in life.

    The world does not owe you any guarantees. To get a guarantee, you have to pay for it. This is what the insurance industry all about: you buy the guarantee that either you receive the outcome you have paid for, or you get your money's worth back in a different form. I have a car insurance, because I do not want to be in trouble over some drunk guy hitting my car. The guarantee indeed comes at a cost - only you see the appropriate cost as "a little freedom", while I do not see freedom as a tradeable resource and prefer paying from my wallet instead. 
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 183 Pts
    edited February 21
    @MayCaesar

    As far as children's healing goes, it is a very complicated manner. We still have not quite figured out where parental rights end and where children's rights start. I do not think the government should be involved in the process either way, but I do think that children should be able to refuse the "faith healing" in favor of the proper medicine - and sue their parents in case they keep insisting.

    We may not have totally figured out where parental rights end and where children's rights start, but we have a clearly established notion of consent... As of August 1, 2018, the age of consent in each state in the United States was either 16, 17 or 18 years of age. The most common age of consent being 16. 

    At least once a year there's a case where a child (usually under 8) died because their parents didn't seek recognized medical advice & service... Sure we can prosecute them for gross negligence or even for murder / manslaughter, but the child is already dead then, what we want is to prevent those deaths...

    Therefore, I think that using the legal age of consent might be appropriate... True, it won't stop people from doing this, any law can be ignored ultimately but we must have well defined legal consequences IMO...

    Just in Idaho, 183 children died since 1970 because their parents denied them medical care for religious reasons, that's about 3.75 children per year... And worst Idaho statute 18-1501 (paragraph 4) protects practitioners of faith healing. It reads:
    The practice of a parent or guardian who chooses for his child treatment by prayer or spiritual means alone shall not for that reason alone be construed to have violated the duty of care to such child.

    In effect, the law allows parents to martyr their children to death for their faith, choosing prayer over modern medicine without fear of any legal consequence. It is madness...

    And that's just Idaho... 

    Zombieguy1987AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    The problem with the age of consent is that it is not very clear how to treat the people who are below that age. Children are in that weird situation where, on one hand, they have freedoms and rights, and on another, they are completely dependent on their parents and cannot do anything without their approval.

    While I find the Idaho law questionable, at best - we have the conflict between parental and child's rights here. The original view on the subject in the law of the US was that the family as a whole was considered an independent unit, and the government could not interfere in the family matters. However, that view was strongly outdated, at best, as it focused too much on the group versus the individual. Nonetheless, I am not sure what the proper resolution of this conflict is.

    Suppose the government develops some rules that all the families must follow. The immediate problem we will face is that the governmental rules will often collide with legitimate people's desires. What if the government, say, outlaws sending a child to a religious school? While I do not believe the religion should be a part of the school education, it is hard to argue with the fact that some of the top regional schools often happen to be religious schools. And as such, the governmental law, aimed to protect children from religious indoctrination, will in practice result in the inferior education those children receive - perhaps setting them for a much worse life in the future.

    I think that, perhaps, it should be not as much about the actions of the parents themselves, as about the consequences of those actions. If someone decided to "heal" their children with faith and somehow the children, indeed, were healed - then everything is well. If, on the other hand, someone's "faith healing" led to the deterioration of their child's health - then that is a failure of their job as a parent, and they obviously should be kept responsible.

    he government should not interfere in the family business, but it should step in when the family does something that clearly hurts the child. There is always a grey area, of course, such as parents forcing their children to go to the Sunday schools: I do not know how that should be treated. In my view, if the child does not want to go to the Sunday school, but the parents keep forcing him/her to go - then that is a valid ground for a lawsuit. But there are many ways to make a child do something without forcing him/her to do so, through positive incentives, for example. These are murky waters.

    I do believe that, as a society, overall we are moving in the right direction. At least the physical discipline is finally starting to become outlawed. It took people a lot of time to realise that beating a child with a wooden stick is a physical abuse, but we got there. The more sophisticated problems, such as parents denying their children a proper healthcare based on some ancient Biblical teachings, will probably be resolved naturally over time, one way or the other.
  • I would like to take the opportunity to post an image.




    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987Dee
    Former Flat Earther

    Libertarianism and Fascism are not the same thing. Libertarianism argues for limited to nonexistent government, Fascism is a form of totalitarianism.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • Okay so captain obvious said that making faith healing a crime is a great idea. The only problem is even the best doctors have wavers put in writing. Anyone here know what a waver means? All medical treatment is an act of faith.  You need a better method of separation between right and wrong sombieguy1987.

  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    @John_C_87

    >All medical treatment is an act of faith.  

    Nonsense, an act of faith is based on a spiritual conviction , a person going under medical treatment is going because mostly it works because it’s based on a body of knowledge that’s been proven over time 

    >You need a better method of separation between right and wrong 

    You need a new argument 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch