Murder by prayer: When is enough, enough?

Hi Archy, That's not really the coolest thing to say to people. If you're not reading others, why should we read you?That aside; I agree. I don't think that it is effective, but it is not wrong, just pointless. Naturally you disagree - you believe it has healing potential - but I do not think that simply practising faith healing is ethically objectionable in and of itself. I disagree with this. Medical science has a proven track record of saving lives. I myself would not be alive without it. Parents have a responsibility to pursue all reasonable possibilities when it comes to treating a sick child. Ignoring an avenue of treatment with such obvious benefit as medical science is simply negligent. If it is wrong for the church, why is it not wrong for the parents? I agree that the policy is a bad one, but the parents are not absolved of responsibility just because they were acting in accordance with some religious command. That would set too dangerous a precedent. But the parents are responsible for the welfare of their child; the church, not so much.There seems to be plenty of responsibility to go around here, but no matter to what extent one finds the church responsible, the parents are still the primary care-givers and they failed in that responsibility I completely agree with you. But the parents are also guilty of this, only more so; it is their child after all. Given that faith healing is "not the only way God works" and that you seem to be saying that mainstream medicine can be an instrument of God's will, doesn't it seem presumptuous to veto God's will and refuse medical care? What if God was intending to cure the child through the instrument of scientific medicine? Couldn't a refusal of medical care be in defiance of God's will? Surely a benevolent God would not want parents to rule out any reasonable form of treatment? Actually, I think this may be the most coherent thing you've posted to date. Your post actually gets your point across. That's much more of an appealing read than just... y'know... ranting. So kudos.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

HI Archy, Of course not. Medical science has a proven track record of success; not 100% success, nor success in every single case, but an enormously high success rate nonetheless.Faith healing has no proven track record of anything other than abject failure. Wrong. The parents neglected to provide their child with effective medical care. They neglected to pursue all options. They neglected to save their child's life. Thus neglect. This isn't complicated.The bottom line here is that if the parents had simply consulted a doctor, the child would still be alive today. They didn't, so the child died. Thus neglect. Are there any other crimes that you think theists ought to be allowed to get away with or is it just negligent homicide?If you allow "It's my religion" as an excuse for criminal behaviour then Islamic terrorists, like Richard "Shoebomber" Reid, could not be prosecuted. He was acting in accordance with his faith after all. Again, a religiously inspired terrorist could employ this exact same argument. But then, we are all well aware that you only want your own faith to enjoy such privileges.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Clarity.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Archy, Which bit is wrong? Do you dispute that medical science can and does save lives? I'm guessing not.Do you dispute my assertion that faith healing has no proven track record? If so, please feel free to share that proven track record with us. When and where has faith healing proven effective?I very much doubt that you can provide any evidence of the efficacy of faith healing, but I'm willing to take a look at whatever you've got. Please don't be so precious. If you think I am lying (which I am not), then please point out where and prove me wrong. Which facts did I misrepresent?I stand by my assertion that medical science has a proven track record of success. I also stand by my assertion that faith healing has no track record of success. I do not believe that either of these claims is in any way controversial. I suggest that you grow a thicker skin if you intend to continue participation here.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Archy, Okay. can you show us any evidence of the efficacy of real faith healing? I agree. He is a total fraud and a concious fraud at that.What I am interested in is your evidence for real faith healers. How do we tell the real from the fake? Okay. Please share with us some evidence of that. This is not an unreasonable request. This amounts to little more than hearsay. Unless you can provide some more compelling evidence of the efficacy of faith healing, I stand by my previous claim; faith healing has no proven track record of success, only one of failure. Okay. Can you provide us with some examples of specific instances of faith healing performed by these groups? And I'm not talking about vague personal anecdotes here, I'm talking about verifiable accounts.I can show you countless studies that verify the claims of modern medicine in exacting detail and to a very high degree of reliability. I doubt that you can do the same for faith healing.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Coyote,I think that's overly harsh. There was nothing wrong with these kids that a quick trip to a local clinic wouldn't have cured. There's no reason to believe there is any genetic defect here, only a memetic defect, namely a crazed and cultic version of Christianity.There's a reason why they don't give Darwin Awards to kids.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Subbie, Actually, that's fine with me. I am quite happy to accept (for the sake of argument only of course) that God works through doctors. If Archy wants to argue that doctors are vessels of God's will or something that actually weakens his position. If God sometimes works through doctors, then by refusing to even consider medical care, the parents are potentially defying God, putting their judgement above his. So yeah, bring it on! Of course, Archy would have to drop the whole wounded act and answer me if he's going to make that argument...Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Archy, You are promoting the parents' "rights" to pursue a religious agenda that even you describe as errant.You are doing this at the expense of the child's right to life.The child's right to life trumps any other right involved in this case. As you say, these kids would have lived if they had received medical care, but the parents chose instead to place their right to religious freedom over that child's right to life. That is inexcusable.Mutate and SurvivePS; Not even gonna try and provide any evidence for the existence of faith healing? No? Not even an anecdote? Can't say I'm surprised.Edited by Granny Magda, : Add PS.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

I do see where you're coming from and you may even be right. I just think, that you are jumping the gun a little. I agree that the kids are the innocent victims in this, but I don't see any reason to suppose that the parents had any defective genes, including any putative gene for dumbassery.I expect that these parents are nothing special. They are probably just ordinary, unexceptional folks, maybe not the sharpest tools in the box, but not unusually stupid. They just got caught up, for whatever reasons, in a crazy cult.I think it's important to remember that religion is as dangerous as it is for precisely this reason; you don't have to be dumb to fall for it. You don't have to be egregiously gullible or genetically damaged to fall prey. It can get its claws into almost anyone. That's what makes it so dangerous. It causes reasonable people to do unreasonable, even unconscionable things.Mutate and Survive

Hi Archy, Natural herbs are combinations of chemicals. That's why herbs work; they contain chemicals, in combination. A great many drugs are simply derived from natural substances.You are committing the Naturalistic Fallacy. Here you seem to be arguing that religious belief should be considered some kind of diminished responsibility, legally akin to mental impairment or insanity.That's a terrible thing to imply Archy! Even if you and I might consider a particular religious edict to be absurd and crazy, that doesn't make the believer any less in command of their own actions.Why do you hate religious people so much?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Taq, In fairness, I'm not quite sure that is what Archy is saying. I think his position is more that the parents in these cases have been led astray from the genuine commands of God by false teachings. At least I think that's what he's trying to say. It's a bit hard to tell since he's having a big sulk with me and won't respond. Of course, how we are supposed to tell the difference between the genuine honest-to-God God and the fakes, I'm not sure.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

By all means. Can't say as I blame you. I do agree with you though. I particularly concur with your point about religious freedom and I find Archy's suggestion that we prosecute the pastor rather than the parents rather worrying. There might be a case for such actions in some extreme circumstances, but in general it would seem to infringe upon freedom of religion.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Indeed. Imagine a clear case, where a preacher is unambiguously telling parents "Don't ever take your child to a secular doctor! Use only prayer to treat your sick child! Otherwise God will be mega-pissed at at you!". That preacher could perhaps conceivably be prosecuted for incitement to negligent homicide or something.The snag is that I very much doubt that many preachers are saying it in those terms. I suspect that usually the influence is more subtle. Faith healing is promoted as being effective and sacred, whereas "secular" medicine (AKA medicine) is scorned and treated as suspicious. Parents then draw their own conclusions. I don't see that much can be done to combat that sort of preaching without trampling on religious freedom. Sadly.Mutate and Survive

Hi Hooah, Well yeah, that's the kind of principle I'm talking about. As Huntard pointed out earlier, such things could be considered in mitigation on the parents' part. Also the abuse of influence might be relevant in the case of prosecuting the pastor. I don't think that the esteem in which a pastor is held makes it any more or less a case of incitement though. A person either incites others to a criminal act or he does not, surely. The esteem in which he is held is not directly relevant, except perhaps in sentencing.I share Taq's anxieties on this point. I would be loathe to risk stomping on someone's religious freedoms unless the matter was genuinely life and death and very clear-cut. But this is quite harmless, as long as the pastor makes it quite clear that parents must take their sick child to a mainstream doctor. They can believe that prayer is superior all they like. They can knock themselves out and have a big magic-hand-waving prayer party and think it the most important thing in the world if they like... so long as the child receives that medical care. The parents are free to view that medical care as an unnecessary adjunct if they like, they just have to provide it.In my view, saying "Faith healing is superior." doesn't quite cross the line. It's a bloody stupid thing to say, but it should never be criminalised. To say "Oh yeah... and doctors are evil!" though, that does cross a line and could be viewed as incitement. To say "Never take your kids to a doctor; use only prayer." is definitely incitement. Whether you could get a successful prosecution out of it though, I am very dubious.Mutate and Survive

Hi Archy, Well yes, in this case clearly the current church leaders and the people currently preaching the "no-doctors" policy would be the ones potentially in the dock. For "preacher" or "pastor", read "whoever is passing on the no-doctors message". Again, I agree. This is the kind of material that I think would be needed to contemplate such a prosecution. I still think that clear-cut examples are going to be rare, even if this case provides one of those examples.Where we disagree is that you seem to be arguing that the duress which these people were under, as members of an oppressive cult, ought to somehow absolve them of legal responsibility. I completely disagree with that. I agree with the previous suggestion that such extenuating circumstances could be taken into consideration when considering sentencing; a lesser sentence might be appropriate. I don't see how it could be considered a legal defence."I was exercising my religious beliefs" cannot be a legal defence. It can never be allowed to excuse an otherwise criminal act. Doing so would set too dangerous a precedent and it could be too easily abused. The same reasoning could be used to excuse such horrors as female genital mutilation or even terrorist atrocities.Even speaking as an atheist, I consider freedom of religious practice to be a vitally important human right. I simply don't think that it can be allowed to trump a child's right to live their life.Mutate and Survive

Hi Archy, Holy crap Archy! That's the complete opposite of what actually happened. You sure don't know much about history for someone who calls himself archaeologist.The Nazis were the ones who employed the "I was only obeying orders" defence, at Nuremberg. That's why it's popularly referred to as the"Nuremberg defence".It was not used against them, by the allies or anyone else, it was used by them.The defence failed, i.e. those Nazis who claimed that they could not be prosecuted because they were "Only obeying orders" were still prosecuted and found guilty.If you were a real archaeologist, you would know these things.You are the one employing the Nuremberg defence, not me. You are the one claiming that the parents could not be prosecuted because they were "only obeying orders" from their cult. You are basing your argument upon what is probably the most famous failed legal defence in the world. Nice going. This is nonsense. They were able to do anything they wanted; they chose not to. They were under great pressure, I understand that, but they were not insane, they were responsible adults. they must be treated in law as adults. that means they must face the same penalty as anyone else.As I've said, their extenuating circumstances could be taken into consideration at sentencing, but they do not constitute a legal defence; unless you consider that religious belief constitutes some sort of diminished responsibility, as insanity does.I notice as well that you continue to ignore my point about setting a dangerous legal precedent; I assume you have no answer. This is unproven hyperbole. More absurd hyperbole. All I want is for parents who stand by and allow their kids to die for want of a simple medical procedure, to be punished. That is far from totalitarian.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod