BS: Religious freedom, or murder?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:18 PM

Bruce's comparison to the vaccine controversy hits home for me. I'm a conventional kind of guy who more-or-less trusts the American food supply and medical system, but I'm married to a chiropractor who is tied to the natural-food, natural-medicine culture. I think my approach to medicine is very rational and scientific - but my wife may disagree with my self-assessment of my position ;-)

My 18-yr-old stepson is somewhat of a crusader, and one of the causes he espouses is the campaign against vaccines. If I want to get him going, all I have to do is mention the word "vaccine"; and he'll pull out a dogeared anti-vaccine treatise that's full of anti-vaccine factoids that he's memorized. The opposition to vaccines is almost religious in its fervor - but since it's generally NOT religious in its roots, it seems acceptable to people who condemn those who base their medical decisions partly (or completely) on religious beliefs.

So, is it OK to base medical decisions on factoids, but not if the factoids are religious?

(My personal opinion of vaccines is "cautious acceptance").

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:14 PM

Teach your beliefs, yes. Allow your child to die based on demonstrably incorrect beliefs, no.

And I don't think the word Murder excludes accidental death caused by a poor choice of actions - that's called manslaughter or 3rd degree murder. You don't have to have even intent to harm, let alone to kill, to be guilty of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:00 PM

"It's a very sad case of parents who love their religion more than they loved their child." Guest PMB

I believe that those parents and others like them would never say or even believe that. Rather, they would say that, of course, they love their God more than their child, because they accept that the child was given to them by God.

There is a big difference there. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" is not an idle statement to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:56 PM

Exactly, Wesley. Folks that always try to claim the high ground make charges without reading. I did not defend these folks. I think they are wrong, and that the authorities should have gotten involved. But that leads us to another problem, and that is the underfunding of public agencies charged with these protections, which leads to cases like this which should have never fallen through the cracks. Instead of you good folks (sincere comment)focusing on all of us with one form or another of theist philosophy, you need to be focusing (IMO)on electing officials who will step up and use our budget to fund things like this, instead of massive phony wars in Iraq.

And I do not believe there is any ground to give on the right of parents to raise their children with the belief system of the parents. Just as Amos and others have every right to teach their belief system to the children, so do the rest of us. The systems are already in place to remove children from dangerous environments for physical, and mental abuse. If one can show that the religious practices are dangerous to the health AND WELFARE of the child, then they can be removed from the home. What some of the anti-theists would like to do is remove my ability to teach my beliefs, only because they find them ridiculous, or anti-intellectual based on their beliefs. That is uncivilized and undemocratic, and amounts to repression of one of the basic tenets of our society, that being freedom to practice my religion and its beliefs. Simply put, it is none of your business what I teach my children, as long as it is not injurious to society. You good people (again a sincere comment)always teach tolerance. You should also be tolerant of my right to teach the world to my kids as I see it. You don't need to agree with my beliefs, but many of you know me. I raise good kids, I fight for worthy causes, I pay my bills, I play music, have many friends who are atheists and pagans and Hindi and Baptist and Jewish and Moslem, I help others, and I try to leave the place better than I found it. All that, and a theist, imagine that!!!

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:37 PM

"I am bothered that you, and apparently some other 'mainstream theists' find this case defensible on religious grounds."

Bee - I've re-read the thread and can't find any posts that come anywhere close to supporting the actions of these parents. You weren't talking about Mudcatters were you?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:30 PM

It's a very sad case of parents who love their religion more than they loved their child. It's why the ancient Phoenicians (at least the nobility) sacrificed their first- born children to Moloch, and why countless thousands of parents of my great-grandparent's generation kept a stiff upper lip when the telegram arrived informing them of the death of a loved son in the trenches- belief in the Greater Good. And of course there's no denying that sometimes there can be greater goods.

Our own NHS sometimes denies treatments which could prolong a sufferer's life from a belief that the cost outweighs the patient's right to life. That's a different sort of Greater Good, and I'm not sure why economic belief should be put on a different plane from religious belief.

The child is dead; the parents have been rewarded for their belief. Perhaps they will question their God, but probably not.

The case is quite different from that of vaccination, as no other child is at risk because of their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bee
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:21 PM

Big Mick, there was nothing preventing these parents from teaching their children their beliefs about healing with prayer. But what could possibly be wrong with allowing the children to grow up before insisting that they also refuse medical care for religious reasons? Most religions do agree that children must reach a certain age before even being allowed to profess their belief by communion or confirmation or other rite of passage. Meanwhile, they freely teach and encourage their children, i.e., 'pass on their beliefs'.

None of us 'usual suspects' - note I have never referred to you or other theists so dismissively - are particularly bothered by the practices of Episcopalians or Lutherans or Roman Catholics or other mainstream denominations, even if we frankly reject those beliefs. I am bothered that you, and apparently some other 'mainstream theists' find this case defensible on religious grounds.

Sometimes the rights of parents to raise their kids must be weighed against the rights of kids to survive that raising.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:14 PM

Ach, Mick, you're right -- up to a point. The right and duty of a teacher-parent depends on whether you want to launch a clone into the world, or someone capable of independent thought. There's a world of difference, when a being is in her formative and impressionable years, between saying "Mugwump is The Way" and saying "We believe that Mugwump is The Way". Enforced opinions do not enhance anybody's level of ability, backed as they are essentially by overwhelming power. In the condition of extreme vulnerability in which a small child lives all day, she will often generate whatever thoughts are expected of her to placate the forces around her.

In the matter of the fuel system of the body, no-one would forgive a parent who fed his child cardboard with ketchup on it, just because he believed it was a sacramental dish. In the matter of the child's mind, we are much more lenient. This is not just a matter of preferred belief; it is a matter of the child's ability to think. Thus, it has a direct impact on his or her future well-being.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:55 PM

I find the anti religionists to be just as noisy and dogged as I do the religious fundies. This thread is another example of that, in the responses. The usual suspects come out, use the example of a fundamentalist couple (ever heard of demagoguery?) and then paint all of us that have a myriad of faiths and beliefs with the same brush.

No need to restate what others have said already, other than to say that civil society, and membership in it, has obligations to protect our young folks. People have a right here to their belief as well. When the two are in conflict, then the State has an obligation to act until the courts make a determination.

As to the idea that Don expresses, it is ludicrous. To suggest that parents don't have a right to teach the children they created their own value system and religious beliefs goes beyond the pale. Because you don't believe in these things, you believe that all folks who do should be prohibited from passing on their beliefs? What then, beyond food and clothing, is the role of the parent? Nice theory, but wholly impractical. That would be like me prohibiting you from teaching atheism until a child is old enough to make their own determinations. The facts are that people will almost always arrive at their own place, based on life experience, in matters of the soul without your interference in the rights of parents to raise their kids.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: bobad
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:38 PM

"Religion is a collective insanity."

Mikhail Bakunin

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:34 PM

Can we tie this thread to the one about a Mudcatter objecting to haveing to show vaccinations of his child in order to attend school?

Are a person's beliefs about vaccinations more or less protected than one's belief about what medical treatments God wants us to use?

If the state ( general term) can mandate medical action, can it not also mandate specific actions, auch as abortions ( for mentally retarded children who have been raped, for example) that many would disagree with?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:27 PM

I believe the relevant charge would be "negligent manslaughter" or "negligent homicide". Of course if the State they live in defines child neglect as a felony, then a death (even if not intended) resulting from the commission of a felony is defined as murder.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:26 PM

I understand Winconsin law contains a
"state statute 948.03(6), against failing to act to protect children from bodily harm. It contains an exemption for what it refers to as " Treatment through prayer." To wit: "A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing … in lieu of medical or surgical treatment."
Isthmus

In the U.K......
'the General Medical Council places great importance on respecting the religious beliefs of patients, but in cases where parents refuse consent for a child's essential care, doctors can and do go to the courts. If an adult refuses a transfusion, there is nothing doctors can do other than try alternative treatments. Jane O'Brien, head of standards and ethics at the GMC, says this can lead to distressing situations for doctors. "Sometimes they have to watch people die, but you can't treat people against their wishes." '
The Guardian

When a woman in Canada gave birth to six babies last year 'it led to a battle between religion and medicine, between the children's right to life and their parents' right to practise their religious beliefs. Two of the babies, born 15 weeks early, died. The parents, who are both Jehovah's Witnesses, refused to allow blood transfusions, in accordance with their faith, and three of the babies were taken into custody by social workers so they could be given the treatment. Custody has now been returned to the parents, who have not been named, but they are angry at the intervention and have gone to court to prevent officials stepping in again'
Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:26 PM

I believe the technical term is manslaughter. It should be basic part of Civics 101 in 7th grade that the sphere of actions and transactions between people is not protected by religious freedom, but by civil law, and that no religious tenet can free you from the obligation of respecting another's civil rights.

I don't know if there is a Child's Bill of Rights in this country, but it would be a jolly good idea. If women can be elevated from chattelhood, so can young people.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bee
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:20 PM

It seems insane to me. The unfortunate thing is that this kind of event tends to make people who are very adamantly religious try to defend it on freedom of religion grounds. I understand their fears: if this religious practice (snakehandling, eschewing medical care, etc.) is made illegal, where does it stop? What religious practice of mine is next to be criminalized by the state?

But it is indefensible, IMO. The child has no choice. The parents are welcome to make their own decisions wrt refusing medical care for themselves. If they did not claim religious reasons for this neglect, there would be no question that their actions would be seen as criminal neglect.

At the very least, I think the state should have an obligation to ensure that children be allowed to grow up before having extreme religious beliefs put their lives at risk.

And yes, those of us who are not religious are sickened by faith based extremist behaviour like this, and put it in the column marked Bad Things Religion Supports. It would be nice to see some church leaders of various denominations step forward and say outright 'we think this kind of behaviour is wrong and evil, and not supported in any way by the Bible or any other teaching from God'.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:13 PM

So why did this child's doctor not report the situation to social services for action?

About mandating moral education.... that sounds fine until you get to the specifics, and to the specific parents who are going to decide what is taught for specific groups of other parents who may like to decide differently. It's easy to pontificate HERE on what oughtta be taught, but imagine that YOU are the parent who is about to be told what your child will learn. Trust me, that issue will suddenly look very different.

That is why we have states' rights in the US as well as federal laws, to try to keep all the rights in balance. It's a good idea, for example, to know what any given state tends to decide in these important areas of law, before moving there.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:07 PM

Prosecution is useless...they won't comprehend why, and it won't affect others who believe that way...the rule should be INTERFERE and save the girl. Then you can tell the family "it was God's will that we did this, and that it worked..and you have your daughter."

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: jeffp
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:49 AM

The legal definition of insanity is a very narrow one. I seriously doubt that this couple fits that definition. I suspect that a charge of involuntary manslaughter could stick, but that's a tough call.

Remember, the parents may have freedom of religion, but that does not give them the right to cause the death of another, either through action or inaction, no matter now justified they may feel. This has been tested in courts many times, frequently involving Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions or Christian Scientists and necessary surgeries. Generally the safety of the child, who has no say in the matter, is considered by the court to be paramount.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:35 AM

There is something to be said for the idea that religious freedom should, in fact must, be the freedom to make choices only for oneself.

I know that this idea will spark a storm of protest, but I really feel that children should be educated in morals, and ethics, (right and wrong) until they are old enough to make their own informed choice as to whether they will follow a religion, and which religion they will choose.

To choose death for one's child, for any reason must be considered reprehensible. To do so for one's own chosen faith even more so.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Midchuck
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:21 AM

These people should not be punished, because by any really rational test, they're insane, and insanity is a defense to crime. Perhaps they should be shut up in a funny farm, but not as punishment, just to protect others from them.

But we can't allow the concept that devout religious belief constitutes insanity, because that would be disrespectful of the religious beliefs of others.

So they get punished because they have a form of insanity that's more institutionalized than that of some other people. Strange.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:03 AM

Once I was reading a judge's decision and came upon this thought:

'Freedom of religion involves freedom of belief, not of action.'

Important words! You can believe in anything, but are not free to break the law.

I hope they throw the book at them.

Cases like this have led me to understand what the ancient Greeks were talking about when they dealt with hubris.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 10:46 AM

I think what people fail to think about is that yes, there is religious freedom.... it's an extension of free will which is, in simplest terms, merely a description of the better side of human nature. BUT in that "freedom" there are also consequences, sometimes tragic ones, for how one exercises it. And as jeffp says, one of those consequences can be a prosecution for child neglect.

"Murder" as a legal charge must include, and prove, intent to kill. A lesser charge may be tacked onto the child neglect charge, but if the prosecution cannot prove they specifically intended their actions to result in the child's death, it can't be charged as murder.

I feel for ya, Mrr. You clearly feel and react strongly to tragic choices. But there is a legal system that supersedes the emotional need to scream "murder", and the issues are more complex and tangled than can be addressed in the grip of that strong feeling.

For instance, say the couple decided that if they sacrificed their child, they'd land in prison and thereby have a chance to "save" or convert prisoners as part of their "witness." An anti-religion person will see that as murder, but a defense lawyer will see it as legally defined insanity, and a prosecuter will see it as a set of facts to prove, one by one.

Here at Mudcat we do not have to make the legal decisions, so we can just vent away even though the venting has little to do with the realitites that are entangled in the issues, nor the faith lives of the majority of Americans whose stories are not "pressworthy."

The need to vent will poison this thread so that rational discourse about the tangled-up issues becomes unwieldy at best, and impossible in the end. The rational religionists among us will simply allocate our time elsewhere (perhaps to good works) as we often quietly do.

But I feel for ya. This is a heartbreaking case.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 10:36 AM

They'll probably get charged with more than than. They'll probably do prison time, both of them. The law is very clear about withholding life-saving medicine. They might as well have chained that child to a table and not fed her. People take a dim view of that kind of disregard for the suffering of their child.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: jeffp
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:55 AM

They will probably be charged with child neglect.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:42 AM

It is? Which way, Rapaire?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:38 AM

The law is well-settled on this point, at least in the US.

Subject: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:32 AM

OK, here we are again, a family prayed over a little diabetic girl till she died. Here is a quote from the mom:

She also says she's not concerned about a police investigation, because she and her husband believe their lives are in God's hands and they did nothing criminal, only tried to do the best they could for their daughter.

So - would you prosecute?