Perhaps, but I would say the answer to that is the old cliche, Two wrongs don’t make a right. I personally disagree with the “In God We Trust” on our money and for that matter “under god” at the end of the pledge of allegance. However my disagreement is not nearly enough to complain about it. If it makes a bunch of religous people happy to put “In God, we trust” on our money I just don’t care that much. If it makes religious people happy to allow thier children to suffer and die, well that is completely at the other end of the scale and does seem like an issue worth fighting for.

Now I’m not advocating anything that says we take all children away households that have strong faith-healing beliefs. The reason for the separation of church in state is so we don’t have thought police. This does seem to cut both ways. I don’t think its right to pre-emptively judge someone on thier thoughts. I just would ask that the outcomes of various choices be treated equally. If kid dies from an easily cured medical condition it just doesn’t matter why. If anything the faith healers deserve MORE blame than the lazy parents. The lazy parents didn’t even notice the fatal cyst on thier kids forehead, while the faith healers saw it and intentionally did ‘nothing’.

#24 MikeZ

I’d disagree with you Dave. I don’t think your hypotheticals are equal cases here.

I used a hypothetical specifically to generalize my response rather than just focusing on the particular cases at hand.

The issue is separating reckless indiference. The article referenced a parent who recieved 6mos in jail for letting their kid run around in a dirty diaper. This was the same sentance as for the death due to diabetes with a religious excuse.

I have no problem punishing reckless indifference, nor do I have a problem prosecuting those who would merely use religion as a excuse after the fact. But, we live a country that makes a national pastime of claiming fate to be god’s will and celebrating a miracle anytime someone survives anything from a natural disaster to a car crash. We have national leaders who claim to talk to god and are guided by their faith in matters of national importance where thousands of lives hang in the balance.

In a country that has “In God We Trust” emblazoned on it’s money, it is an act of supreme hypocrisy to throw someone in prison for actually trusting in god.

That’s right… they’re wearing pantyhose while exercising.

Thanks for ear candy and the eye pain.

Technically I believe you are correct. This seems to meet the requirements for an insanity defense assuming they are willing to go that route. However it isn’t the kind of ‘temporary insanity’ where you’ll be walking home next week. Going back to the real situation it seems to imply the whole congregation is insane and they should immediately be locked up to prevent harm to themselves or others. Is that a better solution?

“Also, if you don’t incarcerate people who toss their kids off a building, do you think it will result in an increase in people doing that?”

For kids off buildings, no because its an extreme hypothetical. For the real issue certainly I think there would be a deterrant factor. This isn’t the case where Jonny Biblethumper came to his belief on his own, his whole congregation is right there behind him with the same beliefs.

Also, if you don’t incarcerate people who toss their kids off a building, do you think it will result in an increase in people doing that?

In other words, is incarceration really going to be a deterrent for someone who so strongly believes their kids can fly that he throws them off a building?

#29 Mike Leatherwood

If a parent honestly and truly believes in their religion, and their religion believes that children may fly, and that parent drops the child off a building, resulting in the child’s death, was it in the parent’s right?

Is prison really the place for someone who honestly and truly believes their children can fly? Also, if you incarcerate people who toss their kids off a building, do you think it will result in an increase in people doing that?

That’s why I brought up the Lemon Test. I can’t think of a compelling secular argument for a grown man to put an infant’s penis in his mouth; there is, on the other hand, a religious reason for doing so.

The trickier situation is preventing the death in the first place.

If your 11 mo old baby has a giant cyst growing on his neck and you don’t bring him to the doctors until he dies. It is a criminal act. I don’t see that it matters that you didn’t bring them because you were high on crack or high on God.

I hadn’t seen the Hannah Overton case though nice reference.

Locally, we have the Hannah Overton case – she’s doing life without parole because she thought punishing her special needs child by forcing him to eat powdered cayenne peppers was a suitable punishment. The idea to do that comes from Lisa Whelchel’s books Creative Correction (Ms. Whelchel played “Blair” on the 80s sitcom “Facts of Life”, the theme song which was written by Alan Thicke – look at me, I just connected to of the Morning Links in one fell swoop!).

If you do a Google search on Creative Correction, you’ll find that it’s really nothing more than a guide on how to abuse children without leaving physical scars. If someone were to write the same book with the title, “An Atheist’s Guide to Child-Rearing”, there would be riots in the street, but when you wrap even the most offensive ideas under the concept of religion, it’s somehow respectable.

There are secular reasons for withholding a child’s medical care, none of them very convincing. “God told me to” isn’t very convincing, either, but it’s given a pass most of the time.

I would agree with you that somebody who beats thier kid to death deserves more punishment than somebody who for religious reasons lets thier child die. That example is clearly a case of some intentional homicide vs a reckless indiference and is already treated differently under the law. That isn’t the issue though.

The issue is separating reckless indiference. The article referenced a parent who recieved 6mos in jail for letting their kid run around in a dirty diaper. This was the same sentance as for the death due to diabetes with a religious excuse. In one instance the kid is still alive, the other is dead. This seems like the kind of sentancing disparity that is the issue.

I’d maintain that why you do something should never even come up in a criminal trial. Unless your presenting some form of incompetence defense it just isn’t relevant.

Thanks, Don

it’s in Genesis 29