Update on faith healing prosecution

The Coffee Shop
1

WESTON, Wis. — Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor.

After an aunt from California called the sheriff’s department here, frantically pleading that the sick child be rescued, an ambulance arrived at the Neumann’s rural home on the outskirts of Wausau and rushed Kara to the hospital. She was pronounced dead on arrival.

The county coroner ruled that she had died from diabetic ketoacidosis resulting from undiagnosed and untreated juvenile diabetes. The condition occurs when the body fails to produce insulin, which leads to severe dehydration and impairment of muscle, lung and heart function.
…
About a month after Kara’s death last March, the Marathon County state attorney, Jill Falstad, brought charges of reckless endangerment against her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. Despite the Neumanns’ claim that the charges violated their constitutional right to religious freedom, Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.

“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.”
…
The crux of the Neumanns’ case, Mr. Peters said, will be whether the parents could have known the seriousness of their daughter’s condition.

Investigators said the Neumanns last took Kara to a doctor when she was 3. According to a police report, the girl had lost the strength to speak the day before she died. “Kara laid down and was unable to move her mouth,” the report said, “and merely made moaning noises and moved her eyes back and forth.”

http://www.nytimes.com/...1/21/us/21faith.html

2

We occassionally hear about cases like this, and it is sad.

There are, as we also see, parents who abuse medical treat and pharmaceutical medicines in kids. I would not use those examples as to why medical/pharmaceutical ‘really sucks’.

Abuse does not negate use. I think that’s my new favorite saying.

We have a few cases like the one you brought up, but then there are also hundreds, if not thousands more cases of people willingly, and even voluntarily, caring for others BECAUSE OF their religion. I would safely posit that many more people help and care for each other due to religion, as oppossed to the number of cases which parents withold medical treatment in favor of prayer.

I could also cite numerous cases of parents that withold medical treatment, combined with abuse/neglect, resulting in death that has nothing to do with religion, but just really crappy parenting. This is really my main point. The issue is muisguided thinking (not religious teaching) or apathy (neglect).

I would prefer the focus be on the crappy or misguided parents. Religion would be to blame if religion commanded such actions, or if all members of a religion demonstrated the act. Since we all know that the vast majority, very close to ‘all’, religious people take their kids to the doctor when they are ill, couldn’t we just call this “bad parenting” instead of “why religion really sucks”?

IMO, this is a major stretch in regards to “why religion sucks”.

3

Ken,
Don’t you have anything better to do? This is a rehash of a thread of yours from last year.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1726524;search_string=neumann;#1726524

4

I’d rather keep the emphasis where it belongs, and that is on the misguided thinking and or lack of common sense of the parents.

Who guides their thinking?

An essay on the site signed Pastor Bob states that the Bible calls for healing by faith alone. “Jesus never sent anyone to a doctor or a hospital,” the essay says. “Jesus offered healing by one means only! Healing was by faith.”

5

What, this should be the only Lavender Room topic that isn’t beaten to death, time after time?

Consider it an update: the court has determined that the case should go to trial.

Your memory is clearly better than mine, youngster.

6

Who guides their thinking?

Obviously another misguided person. The pastor is right that Jesus healed by Faith. But, both he and his followers should also be able to use common sense to recognize that Jesus was physically mong those he was healing, and Jesus is not physically among us currently.

Again, you can use it to say “religion sucks”, but I feel you could also intelligently look around and see that essentially “all” religious people send their kids to the doctor when ill, while still taking it to the Lord in prayer.

Here we are again, with using the far, far, extreme to evaluate the rest. Do we really want to do that with any group?

Would you dare attempt that with a group of people that is a different ethnicity or race than you? Why or why not?

So, why would it be acceptable to do it in this situation. I think you will find, based on my knowledge of your intelligence and skills, that the stereotypical representing the typical, or the extreme representing the rest, is not acceptable in any situation.

7

There should be a prohibition about beating ANY topic to death time after time, not just this one specific topic.

I guess it is fair to consider it as an update, since they are going to bring the parents to trial and that hadn’t been decided when the thread last went around.

8

“There are, as we also see, parents who abuse medical treat and pharmaceutical medicines in kids. I would not use those examples as to why medical/pharmaceutical ‘really sucks.’”

The difference is that there is a process known as medical science, which (whatever its shortcomings) provides some rational basis for determining who can benefit from a given medicine and what the proper dosages should be. It also involves experimental method, peer review, etc., which distinguishes it from quackery.

“Religion would be to blame if religion commanded such actions…”

“Religion” is a general term covering religious beliefs of all people, past and present. It’s clear that the religious beliefs of certain people do indeed cause them to withhold medical treatment from their children, fly airliners into buildings, and so forth. To ignore the underlying belief systems behind such actions would be irresponsibly dangerous. (BTW, I don’t have any inside knowledge of the case brought up by the OP, but for purposes of discussion I’m assuming that the parents were in fact motivated by their religious beliefs.)

Of course, you may object that such beliefs do not represent the “true” religion, but where is the scientific method that distinguishes the “true” religion from the supposedly “false” ones–analogous to the methodology that distinguishes medicine from quackery? By its nature, faith is personal and not susceptible to rational examination, which means that such objective comparisons are out of the question.

9

There should be a prohibition about beating ANY topic to death time after time, not just this one specific topic.

Can you imagine the main forum without any more lifting, PC, Cervelo, or Armstrong doing Kona threads?

10

You forgot the dopers suck thread, the Lance is a doper thread and finally the since Lance is a doper, Lance sucks thread, but without those there would be no main forum.

11

The difference is that there is a process known as medical science, which (whatever its shortcomings) provides some rational basis for determining who can benefit from a given medicine and what the proper dosages should be. It also involves experimental method, peer review, etc., which distinguishes it from quackery.

That sets the stage for “use”. What does any of that have to do with “abuse” (or (even neglect)?

I did not, at all, attempt to refer to any study/article regarding the effect of prayer on recovery or anything like that. I am not addressing whether healing occurs by faith or not, merely the slandering of a whole group based on the extreme acts/beliefs of a few … for the same reasons that it is unacceptable to do that with any other group that shares a general label.

“Religion” is a general term covering religious beliefs of all people, past and present.

What general term that describes a group of people DOES NOT include all people, past and present? Black, Asian, Irish, White, straight, gays, Latin, Men, Women, Adults, Kids, Redheads, etc.

Is anyone going to make statements about any of the groups (listed above) that they do not belong to that are strongly derogitory based on an extreme example/member of the group?

Moreover, how many would oppose group they belong being characterized or defamed based on the example/individual of an extreme position?

I’m not saying the person did not keep her child home due to religious reasons. I stated that she did. What I am saying is that saying “religion sucks” based on that example or in part of that example is no more acceptable than saying sucks because of , even though the vast majority of the group do not fit the description and/or share the belief.

I gotta get back to work. I formally observed a class the other day in which the teacher was instructing on “generalizations” and students were to identify whether they were “valid or faulty”. That was a 6th grade classroom. IMO, I shouldn’t be having the same discussion among educated adults. I’ll check back on the forum after my workout tonight.

12

While I generally take a stance towards religion which could hardly be described as ‘charitable’, I do think that in this case we need to focus on personal responsibility. While religion may have played a part in the neglect and death of the child, ‘mainstream’ religion did not (as evidenced by the fact that most religious people will take their sick kid to the doctor). I would rather assume that religion, in this case, was used as a justification for neglectful behaviour which would have been present either way.

I realize that the law isn’t this simple, but I’d be happier seeing the judge say ‘I’m just going to pretend both of you are not religious at all and throw you in the slammer for simple neglect causing the death of a child’. The religion excuse is just that - an excuse.

13

there are no such things as toxins, only toxic amounts . . . kind of like those rare deaths occurring during triathlons and marathons.

14

but where is the scientific method that distinguishes the “true” religion from the supposedly “false” ones–analogous to the methodology that distinguishes medicine from quackery?

If you read closely, TripleThreat himself exposed the heuristic:

My religion, your belief, his cult.

15

“That sets the stage for ‘use.’ What does any of that have to do with “abuse” (or (even neglect)?”

It sets the stage for distinguishing between use and abuse. Because medical science can tell us (with at least some accuracy) who should be receiving a given drug and how much and how often they should receive it, it makes good sense to recognize the benefits of proper use of drugs, while decrying abuses. My argument is that there is no comparable basis for distinguishing between the abuse of religion and what you apparently see as its proper use.

*"What general term that describes a group of people DOES NOT include all people, past and present? Black, Asian, Irish, White, straight, gays, Latin, Men, Women, Adults, Kids, Redheads, etc. *
**
Is anyone going to make statements about any of the groups (listed above) that they do not belong to that are strongly derogitory based on an extreme example/member of the group?"

Where in my post do you find any suggestion of derogatory remarks against anyone based on a category into which he or she was born? That has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

The point I made was that we have no basis for distinguishing between “true” and “false” religions, because religion by its nature is based on faith, and (by definition of “faith”) you can’t use reason to distinguish between “true” and “false” faiths. They all fit equally well under the umbrella concept “religion.”

“What I am saying is that saying ‘religion sucks’ based on that example or in part of that example is no more acceptable than saying sucks because of , even though the vast majority of the group do not fit the description and/or share the belief.”

Saying “religion sucks” is hardly my style, but religion does suffer a serious drawback, inasmuch as its underlying method (namely, faith) may lead to ill as well as good and provides no means of distinguishing the one from the other. As far as your analogy is concerned, an individual does not choose a category into which he or she is born, but an individual chooses (if only by default) whether to use faith or reason as a method of determining his or her beliefs. If particular beliefs lead to actions that harm others, are we prohibited from expressing criticism of them?

16

"“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.” "

Does anyone else see the strangeness of this sentence? Since when does the word “exercise” only mean “belief”? Doesn’t the very word “exercise” seem to suggest actions being conducted? You can’t really say that people are free to exercise their religion, but then say that you only mean they get to believe what they want, so long as they don’t actually DO anything.

17

You can’t really say that people are free to exercise their religion, but then say that you only mean they get to believe what they want, so long as they don’t actually DO anything.

Of course you can. Examples:

  1. Bigamy
  2. Stoning sinners
  3. Human sacrifice
  4. Withholding medical care and treatment from a minor
18

"“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.” "

Does anyone else see the strangeness of this sentence? Since when does the word “exercise” only mean “belief”? Doesn’t the very word “exercise” seem to suggest actions being conducted? You can’t really say that people are free to exercise their religion, but then say that you only mean they get to believe what they want, so long as they don’t actually DO anything.
I’m guessing that he included the word necessarily explicitly to allow any religious-derived action that does not run afoul of laws.

19

"I’m guessing that he included the word necessarily explicitly to allow any religious-derived action that does not run afoul of laws. "

Ok, but doesn’t that kind of miss the whole point? The idea was to PREVENT laws from being written that restrict the free exercise of religion. I understand that the founders probably didn’t envision some of the relgions we deal with now, and I understand that there are probably some necessary restrictions to place based on health concerns, etc. However, it seems that the very phrase, “free exercise” does indeed “necessarily” mean that conduct is protected, at least to some extent. Otherwise they would have chosen a different word.

20

"I’m guessing that he included the word necessarily explicitly to allow any religious-derived action that does not run afoul of laws. "

Ok, but doesn’t that kind of miss the whole point? The idea was to PREVENT laws from being written that restrict the free exercise of religion. I understand that the founders probably didn’t envision some of the relgions we deal with now, and I understand that there are probably some necessary restrictions to place based on health concerns, etc. However, it seems that the very phrase, “free exercise” does indeed “necessarily” mean that conduct is protected, at least to some extent. Otherwise they would have chosen a different word.
The point of laws is to guide citizen behavior. If certain behavior is not in the best interest of the society, then a law is passed that makes such behavior criminal. I’m sure that the Founding Fathers (capitalize those words, you disrespectful heathen :slight_smile: understood that such laws must necessarily (:slight_smile: take precedence over any religious beliefs. If a party believed that such a law infringed upon the free exercise of their religious beliefs, then the courts and eventually the Supreme Court are there to decide if such a law were indeed unconstitutional. Thus, such conduct is protected.