I’m not sure what purpose it would serve. If they haven’t already learned something from this, they’re not going to.
The problem is the alternative to prison time. The alternative is letting them get off in the name of religion, because that would be their likely defense.
The problem is the alternative to prison time. The alternative is letting them get off in the name of religion, because that would be their likely defense.
The story makes me ill.
Over and above the death of the daughter, tragic though that is, worse in my eyes is seeing how two people could have such a distorted view of reality. Jail won’t change that, probably, and won’t affect the beliefs of those like them.
The guilty party is the organization that led them to these beliefs. I wonder if a church could be prosecuted using the RICO act?
The problem is the alternative to prison time. The alternative is letting them get off in the name of religion, because that would be their likely defense.
The story makes me ill.
Over and above the death of the daughter, tragic though that is, worse in my eyes is seeing how two people could have such a distorted view of reality. Jail won’t change that, probably, and won’t affect the beliefs of those like them.
The guilty party is the organization that led them to these beliefs. I wonder if a church could be prosecuted using the RICO act?
If the parents are given a free pass, why should an organization composed of believers be judged more harshly?
Like I said in my previous post, jail is important to show that people to not get a free pass due to religious beliefs. I am not saying that we will change their views. I am saying that religion should not allow people to avoid prosecution for criminal acts.
I also don’t think that we should look at the religion as something sinister and the member as an innocent, when the religion is just the beliefs of the individual members, especially in this case. If you check the details of the article, the parents were part of a group of individuals with radical beliefs.
If the parents are given a free pass, why should an organization composed of believers be judged more harshly?
I have a bit of a problem with prison as merely retribution, intended to make society feel better. I’m more interested in deterrence and so would rather attack the cause than the symptom. If the punishment doesn’t have the tendency to deter the crime, then I see no purpose behind it.
dmoreau - 29 April 2008 07:29 AM
I also don’t think that we should look at the religion as something sinister and the member as an innocent, when the religion is just the beliefs of the individual members, especially in this case. If you check the details of the article, the parents were part of a group of individuals with radical beliefs.
I didn’t read your link, but had read something else an hour or so before your post. Regardless, the beliefs follow those of larger organizations, such as Christian Scientists. Not likely that they came up with it on their own. There are, apparently, some other churches ("Death Cults") that are closely associated with this sort of thing. Breaking them up would be part of the solution. Few people could maintain such stupid ideas without some kind of social support system that reinforced their beliefs.
I think prison is the only option. Criminal neglect is criminal neglect, whatever story is made up to try and justify it. The court case will hopefully attract a LOT of media attention, so parents who may consider doing the same, will know, A, prayer does not work and B, they will go to prison if they deny their child treatment. A message must be sent, to protect those who are vulnerable from the selfish actions of parents.
I agree, prison as retribution is just another evil, and prison as a deterrant only works when the behavior can be deterred. Somehow, I’m not convinced anyone so fanatical as to let their child die without medical care because that’s what God wants will alter their behavior at the threat of imprisonment. Now, the idea of sterilization is an interesting one. Certainly, it might prevent their inflicting suffering on other children, and it might even be a more effective deterrant. Of course, there’s a slippery slope there and a pretty evil history to enforced sterilization that makes me reluctant to consider the idea despite the outrage I feel towards people like this.
If the parents are given a free pass, why should an organization composed of believers be judged more harshly?
I have a bit of a problem with prison as merely retribution, intended to make society feel better. I’m more interested in deterrence and so would rather attack the cause than the symptom. If the punishment doesn’t have the tendency to deter the crime, then I see no purpose behind it.
dmoreau - 29 April 2008 07:29 AM
I also don’t think that we should look at the religion as something sinister and the member as an innocent, when the religion is just the beliefs of the individual members, especially in this case. If you check the details of the article, the parents were part of a group of individuals with radical beliefs.
I didn’t read your link, but had read something else an hour or so before your post. Regardless, the beliefs follow those of larger organizations, such as Christian Scientists. Not likely that they came up with it on their own. There are, apparently, some other churches ("Death Cults") that are closely associated with this sort of thing. Breaking them up would be part of the solution. Few people could maintain such stupid ideas without some kind of social support system that reinforced their beliefs.
Beliefs come from people, not organizations. The organization might help perpetuate or spread the belief, but we humans are the guilty party in coming up with such nonsense.
Ascetics do not need an organization to coerce them. Historically, bizarre ascetic behavior starts with individuals who decide to go the extra mile.
While I agree with you about your retribution point, what options are there? To do away with prisons might be a nice to think about, but what do we do in the the real world. Letting people off for breaking the law—isn’t that essentially the same as repealing the law? If there is no believable threat behind the law, the law becomes impotent. The crime of this couple happened within the context of our overall society, and I don’t see picking and choosing what laws to enforce and what laws to not enforce as being a good idea. Consistency is important and religious motivations should NOT be considered a special case.
If a gang is part of the equation in a homicide, do we let the individual go and just focus on the gang? What do we do then about those who kill and aren’t in gangs? Do they get prosecuted?
Poor little children in general. The last paragraph mentioned another recent death due to the same ignorance.
Prison is not a fix, but I believe it’s all we have. Punitive sterilization is not legal anywhere in the US is it?
It always seems to be the children who are the subjects of “death by prayer.”
From (Christian Science) wiki:
There are now statutes in 44 states which contain a provision stating that a child is not to be deemed abused or neglected merely because he or she is receiving treatment by spiritual means, through prayer according to the tenets of a recognized religion.
No, prison is not a fix. You’re right, Traveler, but until education is valued more than superstition, what are we going to do about these ignorant people who allow their child to die? My thoughts is, when people see this stuff happening, they need to do what Texas is doing and in cases like this, get the child medical help. I thought that even when I considered myself a Christian, because I thought that was just stupid. The only difference between then and now is that I believed both had to be combined in order to be effective. Thing is, one in 3 people I knew who had cancer. It made no difference and there was no divine will taking place. One relied on chemo, surgery, and prayer, but still died of bone cancer. Another relied on herbs and chemo, without surgery, she died of cervical cancer. She MIGHT have lived IF she had her cervix removed when the cancer was first found. My mother had breast surgery and prayer. She lived and has been cancer free for six years. The prayer was just a psychological refuge for those who believed in it.
Now, I don’t care if people chose to pray, but I do care if they don’t get medical help, esp if it is a child who needs medical treatment. They can pray all they want, but that alone cures nothing. Only with medical help, with or without prayer will the person have any chance of survival. I’ve always thought that and I’ve always believed that only medical treatment can help people and it is abuse of a child not to get them medical treatment. I never relied on prayer when it came to medical issues and I never once believed it made me a bad Christian when I was one. To be honest, my mother doesn’t either or she would not have insisted I got all my vaccinations or taken me to the doctor everytime I was sick and she’s an Evangelical. IMHO, it’s plain stupidity to rely on prayer alone for medical issues and abusive to children. I won’t deny a Christian their right to pray as long as they do not deny a child medical treatment and consider it abuse if they do deny a child medical treatment. If medical treatment is being denied a child, we need to intervene before the child dies from the medical condition. It’s not the prayer that cures, but rather the medical knowledge we currently have that helps people. All prayer does is help those psychologically who believe in it.
Mriana,
It’s nice to finally “talk” with you. For me, you are sort of the Simon Cowell around here in the sense that you often say what I’m thinking - but I don’t say it.
Education seems the answer to everything doesn’t it? Supplanting superstition is very difficult and takes generations. In the mean time what do you do, nothing? I like that Texas (of all places) is encouraging communities to get involved in getting medical attention for children, but what about the “isolationists” as described in the current article? In such cases, the deed is done with very few people around and educational prophylactics are too late. And wrt education, some people don’t take well to education and are convinced everyone else is wrong, period. Just look at the ask a christian thread or the twin towers conspiracy thread. I appreciate that philosophers enjoy such debates, but debating “all-knowing” goats ain’t my cup of tea.
It’s sad that you have seen cancer so up close and personal. I agree that prayer is a psychological refuge but heck, people can believe whatever they want so long as they do no harm to others. (which includes pushing their superstitions!)
I always loved the Door’s, but - “You cannot petition the lord with prayer!” - scared me when I was a young kid listening to it. My parents raised me to be a god-fearing person, like that’s a good thing. My dad, who worked for Shell Oil, also taught me that the oceans are so big that it is impossible to significantly pollute them. He came up with that philosophy as a Naval officer cruising the immense oceans. A person either learns the realities of life or clings (Obama was right.) to the superstitions and incorrect “facts” passed down. I really, really, really wish there was a benevolent god and I could just sit back and be comfortable that all is good. Santa clause seems cool too. Easter Bunny just scares me.
I recently read “Lord Save Us From Your Followers.” One of the better bumper-stickers in the book was Ghandi’s, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”
