Freedom of Religion vs Child Welfare

[Sucumbio]

"Parents hope for lenient sentence in faith-healing death " -SOURCE

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791" -SOURCE

"Seperation of Church and State - Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists" -SOURCE

A couple was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide in the death of their son. Their son had been suffering from a urinary tract blockage, but because of their religious beliefs, he was refused medical treatment in favor of "faith healing." The parents claim they did not realize their son's illness was life-threatening. Their congregation has several similar cases in which minors have perished as a result of not getting proper medical treatment in lieu of "faith healing."

This raises some questions: did the state have the right to prosecute this case? Do parents have the right to deny their children medical care if it objects to their religious beliefs? Are children capable of making the decision to be a member of a congregation? If not, should they be held to their parent's beliefs, or should they be wards of the state in this regard? What other types of rights will citizens lose if the State steps in to mandate that children may no longer be held to their parent's religious beliefs?

My take, we have two choices:

This case seems to hinge on the fact that the parents didn't know their son's life was in danger. Therefore they didn't kill him on purpose, they were doing what they thought was right, and it backfired. Other cases have been even more gruesome, where the parents DID know their child's life was in danger, and STILL didn't allow doctors to intervene.

One solution to prevent things like this from happening is to outlaw religions with dangerous practices from involving their kids in the dangerous practices themselves. True this ... will divide the religions into 2 categories, "dangerous" and "non-dangerous" but lets be real, it's already so divided, just not officially. If we were to categorize snake handlers, faith healers, etc as "dangerous" and require them to not involve their children in the dangerous aspects of their religion, then at the very least, kid's lives will be saved. Kids who aren't mature enough to consent to these dangerous practices. Kids who shouldn't handle snakes, and who shouldn't agree or be coerced into denying or be denied medical attention because of their faith, or their parent's faith. This should also be a states' right, so that people who want to practice free of this categorization, can move to states that don't care.

The other alternative? Do nothing. Let the wack-a-do families die out, because their kids keep dying of the flu. Harsh, yes, but... far more in line with the current take on the 1st amendment, the precedent of which was set forth by our founding father Thomas Jefferson.

Then again, the 1st amendment wasn't drafted with wack-a-do's in mind. The "church" in question in this article and others like it only go back to the late 1800's, and are basically founded -because- the first amendment let them and others get away with it. I find these so-called churches just as despicable as the Westboro Baptist Church, home of the "reverend" Fred Phelps.

 

[Eor]

I don't really see a need to categorize religions into two groups. To be honest that seems to just be adding more government control over religious freedom. The American Government has already said that religious freedoms do not take precedent over the law (except for discriminatory cases). For example, Rastafarians are still not allowed to smoke weed, Native American Church can't use Peyote, and so forth. Parents are responsible for their children's well being, and if they refuse medical treatment, for religious reasons or not, then the law says that they are responsible. I believe that this alone is enough. When a child is old enough to make his own choices then he can chose to believe what he wants, and deny any treatments he wants. But a parent should not have the right to have their child die due to their religious beliefs before a child is capable of making his own choices on the matter. We wouldn't need to arbitrarily make a date where a child is considered capable of choosing his religion, since to the medical field what someone's religion is doesn't matter. When the person is old enough to make their own choices, they can make their own choices, whether it's religious or not.

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't really see a need to categorize religions into two groups. To be honest that seems to just be adding more government control over religious freedom. The American Government has already said that religious freedoms do not take precedent over the law (except for discriminatory cases). For example, Rastafarians are still not allowed to smoke weed, Native American Church can't use Peyote, and so forth. Parents are responsible for their children's well being, and if they refuse medical treatment, for religious reasons or not, then the law says that they are responsible. I believe that this alone is enough. When a child is old enough to make his own choices then he can chose to believe what he wants, and deny any treatments he wants. But a parent should not have the right to have their child die due to their religious beliefs before a child is capable of making his own choices on the matter. We wouldn't need to arbitrarily make a date where a child is considered capable of choosing his religion, since to the medical field what someone's religion is doesn't matter. When the person is old enough to make their own choices, they can make their own choices, whether it's religious or not.

My problem is that people such as these AREN'T obeying the law. As you say adults can refuse medical treatment on Religious grounds... but not kids. There's got to be more done by the State to ensure the well being of these poor defenseless children getting born into these insane religions. It's unfair! Think of how poor their health is, not getting any booster shots, but still expected to go to school, being exempted from getting very necessary state-required vaccinations. All states but Mississippi and West Virginia allow religious exemption for school entrance requirements regarding vaccination. It's a public health risk. And it's leading to deaths that are foolish and completely avoidable. I'd even be ok if the sentences for convicts like this couple were made harsher. Perhaps that's all the States need to do. But I feel to do nothing is to leave the door wide open for more senseless death and disease.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

My problem is that people such as these AREN'T obeying the law. As you say adults can refuse medical treatment on Religious grounds... but not kids. There's got to be more done by the State to ensure the well being of these poor defenseless children getting born into these insane religions. It's unfair! Think of how poor their health is, not getting any booster shots, but still expected to go to school, being exempted from getting very necessary state-required vaccinations. All states but Mississippi and West Virginia allow religious exemption for school entrance requirements regarding vaccination. It's a public health risk. And it's leading to deaths that are foolish and completely avoidable. I'd even be ok if the sentences for convicts like this couple were made harsher. Perhaps that's all the States need to do. But I feel to do nothing is to leave the door wide open for more senseless death and disease.

I don't really think we can cure stupidity with laws... Face it, if those "wack-a-dos" can see that their child is suffering, and they don't seek medical help, they are missing at least half their brain.

I think the problem is that they take modern medicine for granted, in that it creates no "miracles", and their weird faith-healing occasionally does (by miracles I mean the ultra-strange occurrences often in your favour). The funny thing is, that modern medicine creates what people several hundreds of years ago would call, "miracles" on demand! They have to realise this.

To divide religions into 2 distinct groups would promote serious conflict, and would create massive social problems. I don't think that this solution would work, it'd just divide the country it was implemented in. There would also be huge disputes about what religions should be on the "dangerous" list and what shouldn't.

I think a better solution would be to outlaw faith-healers and other crazy psuedo-scientific medical practices, or make them extremely hard to operate with taxes and the like. This would mean there are fewer faith-healers and homeopaths around that pretend to treat people and instead don't do anything. It would give the "wack-a-dos' no choice but to use conventional western medicine that WORKS! At least most of the time.

I think the root of the problem lies in the over-prevalence of radical religion. The only way this'll change is through major social upheaval.

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't really think we can cure stupidity with laws... Face it, if those "wack-a-dos" can see that their child is suffering, and they don't seek medical help, they are missing at least half their brain.

Well, so says you or I, but in terms of legislature there's no way that would cut the mustard. The congregations such as Followers of Christ Church are technically within their 1st amendment rights to practice their religion, and to tax them differently is a violation of that.

Their aversion to modern medicine is also protected as we saw in the links above, though it may be foolish to us, it's their right. The problem is that some churches do have physically dangerous practices. Snake handling, faith-healing, "birthing" rituals where you pretend to be born again by getting smothered, there's been fatalities from that too, full body baptisms where you get dunked under water, has resulted in drowning... now these are totally rare, and don't necessarily apply to children... but when a child partakes in anything like this, I feel it's not only irresponsible of the parents but of the State. Child Welfare laws are what I'm referring to here, and these -could- be enhanced or otherwise amended to include outlawing child involvement in physically dangerous religious practices.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Well, so says you or I, but in terms of legislature there's no way that would cut the mustard. The congregations such as Followers of Christ Church are technically within their 1st amendment rights to practice their religion, and to tax them differently is a violation of that.

Their aversion to modern medicine is also protected as we saw in the links above, though it may be foolish to us, it's their right. The problem is that some churches do have physically dangerous practices. Snake handling, faith-healing, "birthing" rituals where you pretend to be born again by getting smothered, there's been fatalities from that too, full body baptisms where you get dunked under water, has resulted in drowning... now these are totally rare, and don't necessarily apply to children... but when a child partakes in anything like this, I feel it's not only irresponsible of the parents but of the State. Child Welfare laws are what I'm referring to here, and these -could- be enhanced or otherwise amended to include outlawing child involvement in physically dangerous religious practices.

Sure, but outlawing child involvement in physically dangerous religious practices would go against the First Amendment right? Or maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. But if it works, it sounds like a smashing idea (better than mine! at least legally). The only other problem is, enforcing it. The majority of the time, there is very little evidence that the practice occurred and I doubt many people are going to report on this. However it would act as a deterrent. This would lower rates of these practices surely.

 

[GoldShadow]

The majority of the time, there is very little evidence that the practice occurred and I doubt many people are going to report on this. However it would act as a deterrent. This would lower rates of these practices surely.

Medical personnel, teachers, psychologists, social workers and most government employees are required by law to report cases of suspected child abuse to the authorities.

Sure, but outlawing child involvement in physically dangerous religious practices would go against the First Amendment right?

Would it?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Medical personnel, teachers, psychologists, social workers and most government employees are required by law to report cases of suspected child abuse to the authorities.


Would it?

I wouldn't know, I don't live in the USA, and I'm unfamiliar with it's laws. Sorry. I think you may have caught me being wrong there.

And also how often is there a government employee involved in these practices. If he doesn't report it, who's really going to notice?

 

[GoldShadow]

Fair enough about the laws, but surely you can come up with an ethical argument regarding whether or not it infringes on first amendment rights!

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Fair enough about the laws, but surely you can come up with an ethical argument regarding whether or not it infringes on first amendment rights!

Well, I might be able to It'll probably be rubbish (I'm quite tired at the moment), but here goes:

The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This means that as long as faith-healing and other weird religious practices are considered the free exercise of religion, legislating against them breaks the first amendment.

Now I think that most people who do faith-healing genuinely believe that it works and that it is part of their religious beliefs. For the other practices, "birthing" rituals, full body baptisms etc. the people probably believe this is part of their religious beliefs. If that is true, then those practices are the free exercise of religion and that means it is out of bounds for Congress.

 

[Eor]

Well, I might be able to It'll probably be rubbish (I'm quite tired at the moment), but here goes:

The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This means that as long as faith-healing and other weird religious practices are considered the free exercise of religion, legislating against them breaks the first amendment.

Now I think that most people who do faith-healing genuinely believe that it works and that it is part of their religious beliefs. For the other practices, "birthing" rituals, full body baptisms etc. the people probably believe this is part of their religious beliefs. If that is true, then those practices are the free exercise of religion and that means it is out of bounds for Congress.

The government actually can violate the free exercise of religion in America if it has a "compelling state interest" and has "pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion"