I am what I am, and I know that I can be a dick when it comes to issues of faith. I try to keep my tongue in check, but there are times when confronted with the absolute nuttery of people that I just have to let loose. And being who I am and having the interests I have, I’m the same way with medicine. So when the two overlap, I have to admit that I become particularly snarky.
The examples of this intersecting are legion, but today I read an article and commentary on Pharyngula about a family who belong to the Followers of Christchurch in Oregan. Their baby has a hemangioma, which is not normally a particularly big deal, but the location is a critical factor in this case. “The area started swelling, and the fast-growing mass of blood vessels, known as a hemangioma, eventually caused her eye to swell shut and pushed the eyeball down and outward and started eroding the eye socket bone around the eye.”
Ew.
The family are absolutely certain that the only treatment she needs is prayer and anointing oils. They are, in short, perfectly prepared to permanently disfigure and possibly blind their daughter because it’s what God wants. The FoC church in Oregan apparently has an infant mortality rate 26 times that of the general population. Clearly, if God is their healer, he sucks at it.
This is hardly a new concept. The ridiculous body count of faith healers is well documented on sites like What’s The Harm, and I’d be hard pressed to imagine anyone who hadn’t heard heard of a similar story. Often the parents wind up in court, and as in the case of both this story and that of Daniel Hauser and many others, the parents have been legally removed from the equation. The right to life trumps the right to religious freedom.
Let me go on the record here. If you’re a grown adult and don’t want medical treatment for a condition, that’s fine. You’ve made a choice. It might not be an educated one, but if you aren’t able to make an educated choice by this point, you’re pretty much a waste of life anyway, so maybe it’s for the best. But your children cannot make that choice and deserve to have the best possible chance at survival. You should not and for the most part do not have the ability to let your child die or be grossly harmed by your negligence even if you believe your God would rather it be this way. That’s all there is to it. As a parent, your job is to protect and love your children. Refusing them medical attention fails at that job.
Now, I know that you’re thinking you’re protecting them in the next life. On that one we disagree, but I’m willing to concede that you’re an illogical tit with whom there is no winning. Fortunately, the way we win is by getting the courts involved. If you can’t do it, at least the state can look after your children and give them the attention they need. Your right to religious freedom means nothing to me the minute you are a threat to the health and welfare of another.
In fact, I’m tempted to set up a church who believe in my supreme right to murder whomever I choose. It’s my right to religious freedom, after all.
Jim
You said it, Jimmy! Freedom for wackadoos in regards to everything except causing harm to another being. Sounds reasonable…And to the parents, NEVER just pray for healing. Take some control! How about a little fire, people?
Theists live for death. We live for life. The immorality of religion strikes down another innocent life before it’s time. The motivation for this behaviour is found in two areas.
1. Dogma. If you are taught that Jesus heals the sick, an you accept that premise, then the actions mentioned above take on a precieved noble attribute of devotion, rather than a sickening display of outright child abuse.
2. Control. Religion is used as a big stick that families whom cannot police themselves without the morality lifted from the pages of the bible. A sick child getting better without help from doctors cements religious truth for every member of the family, thus freeing the family from worrying about teaching their children about why bad things happen for real, and all sorts of realities that are considered taboo under the protective envelope of the church.
Bang out article, Jim.
meant to say “Religion is used as a big stick that families whom cannot police themselves without the morality lifted from the pages of the bible, can rely on to maintain order within the family unit.
Pingback: Tweets that mention And Now, A Snarky Commentary On Religious Freedom | Meddling Kids -- Topsy.com
I absolutely agree that people should have religious freedom, but their freedom cannot infringe upon mine or upon the safety and happiness of others. It’s a running theme on the blog.
I live in Oregon and these stories have been in the news a lot, especially the one mentioned here. They were in court this week in the courthouse about a mile from where I live. The funny part of this sad story is that when they had to go to court, they didn’t use faith-defence, they got a lawyer. That, and now that their child is receiving care, they say that God found a way to make it happen. So even in wake of their neglect of their child, once the state took the child and started doing the right thing, they still believe it was god’s hand.
These people are mentally ill and need to be in an institution. Why is all religion not classified as mental illness? Believing things that are obviously not true, even when given proof they aren’t true. Someone who isn’t there that speaks to you in your head and tells you to do things. Sound familiar? Sounds like schizophrenia to me!
Religion seems so nihilistic to me, or at least the religion of people like this. God will take care of me, so really, I shouldn’t have to. That’s just lame and weak.