Religious Based Neglect

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Religious Based Neglect

Post #1

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sorry for the long post, but it's necessary to set up the debate...

From Washington Post / Jonathan Turley:
Them folks wrote: In the past 25 years, hundreds of children are believed to have died in the United States after faith-healing parents forbade medical attention to end their sickness or protect their lives. When minors die from a lack of parental care, it is usually a matter of criminal neglect and is often tried as murder. However, when parents say the neglect was an article of faith, courts routinely hand down lighter sentences. Faithful neglect has not been used as a criminal defense, but the claim is surprisingly effective in achieving more lenient sentencing, in which judges appear to render less unto Caesar and more unto God.

This disparate treatment was evident last month in Wisconsin, a state with an exemption for faith-based neglect under its child abuse laws. Leilani and Dale Neumann were sentenced for allowing their 11-year-old daughter, Madeline Kara Neumann, to die in 2008 from an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes. The Neumanns are affiliated with a faith-healing church called Unleavened Bread Ministries and continued to pray with other members while Madeline died. They could have received 25 years in prison. Instead, the court emphasized their religious rationale and gave them each six months in jail (to be served one month a year) and 10 years' probation.
>snip<
Compare the Neumanns' legal treatment with a couple of other recent cases in which children were injured or killed by nonreligious neglect. Russell J. Wozniak Jr. and Jennifer Ann Wozniak, of Chippewa Falls, Wis., received basically the same sentence as the Neumanns for, the criminal complaint said, allowing their 2-year-old to wander around covered in vomit and wearing a full diaper.

Then there are the parents of Alex Washburn. The 22-month-old died after hitting his head at home in Cross Lanes, W.Va. His parents, Elizabeth Dawn Thornton and Christopher Steven Washburn, said the boy fell a lot and hit his head on the corner of a table and his chin on a toilet. They apologized for not seeking medical help and agreed to terminate their parental rights to their other children, handing over custody to the state. "I wish I did seek medical treatment for my son faster," Washburn told the court. "That will definitely be with me for the rest of my life." The court sentenced both parents to three to 15 years in prison.

So the Neumanns got one month in jail for six years and kept custody of their children, and the Washburns got up to 15 years in prison and agreed to give up their kids.

Further info from page 2 of that article:

In Oregon, the Followers of Christ church has been cited for injuries and deaths associated with its faith-healing beliefs for decades. In one 10-year period, estimated Larry Lewman, an Oregon state medical examiner, the church experienced 25 child deaths related to faith-based medical neglect. A recent case involved Ava Worthington, a 15-month-old who fell ill in 2008. Rather than call doctors, her parents -- Carl Brent Worthington and Raylene Worthingon -- allowed a simple cyst on her neck to grow to the size of a softball as they anointed her with oil and administered small amounts of wine, according to testimony at the trial. She died of a blood infection and pneumonia.
...Despite the record of deaths and injuries at their church, the Worthingtons were allowed to keep custody of their 5-year-old daughter and a new baby that was coming in a matter of months. They needed only to promise to bring them to a doctor for scheduled checkups.
...Now another trial is pending for the family: Raylene Worthington's parents, Jeff and Marci Beagley, were charged with criminally negligent homicide in the death of their 16-year-old son, Neil Beagley. He died in 2008 from a urinary tract blockage that could have been treated with a minor surgical procedure.
Compare this to the following from the same article:
Them folks wrote: The key to the use of such a defense is that it must involve belief in a divine being, not a particular lifestyle. In 2007, Jade Sanders and Lamont Thomas of Atlanta were convicted of malice murder and given life sentences for the death of their 6-week-old child. The defense attorneys cited the couple's strict vegan lifestyle to explain why they fed their newborn son a diet of soy milk and organic apple juice, though during the trial Sanders said she had also breast-fed her son, who died in an emaciated state at 6 weeks, weighing just 3 1/2 pounds. The prosecutor and court had no qualms in treating this couple's beliefs as a poor excuse for murder, calling a nutritionist and vegan expert as a witness to show that a vegan diet can be safe for an infant. The prosecutor even told the jury: "They're not vegans, they're baby-killers."
For debate:

Should religious based neglect be considered as a "lesser evil" than other forms of neglect?

Should those found guilty of religious based neglect receive lesser punishment because of their religious beliefs?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
FinalEnigma
Site Supporter
Posts: 2329
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Bryant, AR

Post #11

Post by FinalEnigma »

VermilionUK wrote:
FinalEnigma wrote:
I've no problem with that, but until they learn to deal with their children's problems rather than praying about them and doing nothing(praying is fine, but you have to at least give god something to work with and help the problem yourself), I don't think they are fit parents.
Yup - and that's the saddest part. There's only one way (in my opinion) that we can stop this. But we can't ban/prevent teaching of religion (those that lead to neglect) - and so we can't stop this from happening.
FinalEnigma wrote: however, you aren't going to find a judge anywhere that will mandate phychological treatment or child welfare to unindoctrinate them and make them stop following their religion.
Maybe there should be laws against child indoctrination to prevent them from becoming a possible danger to their future children.

It's harmful ignorance that is preventable - so lets prevent it.
indeed as you said, we can't ban the teaching of religion - even to children. many will cite their religious texts telling them to bring up their children in the ways of the lord or some such, and call it religious discriination.

although, you being in the UK, you don't have to worry about the pesky US constitution.
We do not hate others because of the flaws in their souls, we hate them because of the flaws in our own.

User avatar
VermilionUK
Scholar
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:48 pm
Location: West-Midlands, United Kingdom

Post #12

Post by VermilionUK »

From what I've read:
1st Amendment wrote: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.
I think that this next suggestion would have been better - and would address the issue of restricting medical care due to religion.
James Madison, 1789 wrote:The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
- Sherlock Holmes -

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7466
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

Post #13

Post by myth-one.com »

In my favorite movie of all time, [i]A Few Good Men[/i], U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Dawson wrote:We were supposed to fight for people who couldn't fight for themselves.
The U.S. government should protect and defend those citizens who cannot protect and defend themselves. This includes children. This basic responsibility should override "rights" others might claim.
Joeyknuccione wrote:Should religious based neglect be considered as a "lesser evil" than other forms of neglect?
It is not a "lesser evil" from the standpoint of the victim. Death by religious based neglect is still death. Had that same child been viciously murdered, he would be just as dead. Death equals death. Treat them equally.
Joeyknuccione wrote:Should those found guilty of religious based neglect receive lesser punishment because of their religious beliefs?
Oftentimes, punishment is based on whether or not the offender might be a continuing threat to society. From my experiences, religious beliefs ingrained from birth are extremely difficult to purge from one's pattern of behavior. So if the same situation ever presented itself again, I would expect the same behavior. For the same reason, there may be no guilt exhibited -- after all, it was "God's will." Yet, it has to be difficult for a jury to further punish a family which is mourning the death of a child -- even if the family ignorantly caused that death.

More important than punishment, is the protection of any additional children in the family. They too may be in danger. The system has already failed one child, it should either remove or constantly monitor the health of any other children in the affected families.
1st Amendment wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, . . .
If I founded "The Church of the Almighty Dollar" and our first commandment was "Thou shalt pay no taxes" and we followed that commandment faithfully -- that would be OK?

Hallelujah!! :joker:

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #14

Post by McCulloch »

1st Amendment wrote: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.
But the issue here is how much should the free exercise of some people (the parents) be allowed to affect the well-being of other people, who have not decided whether to follow that religion (the children). Whatever answers you find, you must apply them equally to female genital mutilation, pseudo-scientific medical practices, the prohibition of the teaching of science and the withholding of information about safe sexual practices.
VermilionUK wrote:I think that this next suggestion would have been better - and would address the issue of restricting medical care due to religion.
James Madison, 1789 wrote:The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
But Madison is wrong. If my own religion and conscience led me to believe that everyone who is taller than 2 meters (6 feet, 6¾ inches) is evil and should die, there will be sufficient pretext to infringe on the practice of my religion.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7466
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

Post #15

Post by myth-one.com »

James Madison, 1789 wrote:The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
McCulloch wrote:But Madison is wrong. If my own religion and conscience led me to believe that everyone who is taller than 2 meters (6 feet, 6¾ inches) is evil and should die, there will be sufficient pretext to infringe on the practice of my religion.
Madison's statement can also be used to protect non-theists from the religious beliefs of others. "The civil rights of none . . ." None includes atheists.

Suppose your religion (as described above) was allowed to merrily begin killing anyone over 2 meters tall. Wouldn't the civil rights of those being killed be abridged on account of your religious beliefs and worship? Especially those holding different beliefs? If so, Madison's statement would protect their civil right to life.

Indeed, this is what takes place today as we discuss this topic. Andrea Yates was taught by her clergy that children who die in their innocent years go immediately to heaven and avoid the possibility of burning in hell eternally. She acted on those beliefs and murdered her five children. Christian clergy now verify that the children's "souls" are in heaven.

Can that affect me? Absolutely! No man is an island. One of my grandchildren could have met and married one of her children -- not now! No one knows what the future held for those five children -- nor how they might have affected our lives. Now we will never know. We are all robbed by these type of crimes. So the civil rights of all of us are abridged by such events.

What recourse do we have? None. It's the price we pay for "separation" of church and state.

If I convinced some depressed mother to murder her innocent children, I would become an accomplice. But the "church" is held to no such standard. They voluntarily accept absolutely no responsibility.

User avatar
Sir Rhetor
Apprentice
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: The Fourth Spacial Dimension

Post #16

Post by Sir Rhetor »

There is sanity in numbers.

If I declared myself a prophet and said that I am a portal of God, would it be OK for me to act on a belief that God wants the Capitol building destroyed? Of course not! Religion should, in my opinion, be lowest on the totem pole of reason. First should come government laws. Underneath would be religion. This whole discussion centers around which is more important: selfish religious practices (they are selfish because they are only for getting yourself into heaven) or government regulations meant to sustain a stable society?

Post Reply