Children Of Christian Fundamentalists Are Dying .. Parents Think Only God Can Cure

The Children Of Christian Fundamentalists Are Dying Because Their Parents Think Only God Can Cure Their Illnesses (VIDEO)

March 9, 2016 8:29 am ·

As a former career child protective services investigator, I occasionally came across cases of religiously motivated medical neglect- mostly involving immunization issues. However, even as a practitioner in this difficult and sometimes controversial field, I had no idea how serious and widespread the problem is in some places. In addition, I never saw a case that comes close to being as horrific as the one described in the linked article and video that is the topic of this thread.

While granting religious exemptions is primarily the purview of the states, the Federal government plays an important role. Therefore, I will be posing a question to all of the candidates for president on what so far has not been, but should be, an election year issue. Yes, I did say all in that both parties are equally guilty of allowing this to continue. However, it would be interesting to see how the answers from the Democrats contrast with the answers from the candidates of the party that is obsessed with religious liberty. Case in point:

More about that mentality later.
First, the case:

And…in my opinion, the very worst part of this is that they killed two children and had the second one who died in their care after being convicted in the first death! In my experience in the field, that is unconscionable and ludicrous. There is no indication that they were under supervision by protective services which would be a very minimal requirement in order to retain custody Let’s have a look at an overview of the issue, laws state by state, data on injuries to children because of religion-based medical neglect and more http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=24#Data

As you can see, and as I stated, it is a widespread and serious problem. So while this couple was prosecuted because Pennsylvania is not one of the 16 states that have religious defenses to felony crimes against children, residents of other states may only face civil penalties or misdemeanor charges, or suffer no consequences at all

http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=24#Exemptions

Now for the all-important role of the Federal Government:

And that folks, is where it now stands! In 2003 CAPTA was reauthorized with no change to the religious exemptions although several organizations called upon Congress to remove the exemption, including the United Methodist Church, National Association of Medical Examiners, Justice for Children, and the National Child Abuse Coalition, which consists of about thirty national organizations working to prevent child abuse.

So, to those who are pushing religious freedom, usually in the context of "another issues" ....how far are you willing to push it?

I hope that at least some others out there feel the outrage that I do!

 

It's obviously not that widespread of a problem if you were in the field and never realized it.

 

You'd save far more children if you had this same concern for them in the womb. While I believe it should be a state issue, I'm for protecting all children from their irresponsible parents.

 

3 things:

1) The issue isn't only christian fundamentalists. A lot of anti-corporate granola eating liberals are shunning big pharma solutions as well.

2) They are two separate issues in my mind. Anti-vax is more tolerable because if the herd protection holds true, they should be protected as well by the herd. But people are not worried about the children. They are worried about themselves having to go get and pay for another booster shot for themselves and want to pass that burden onto someone else so they do not have to.

3) I have different standards for prevention and treatment. If someone has not taken the steps to prevent an illness, then I don't care why they didn't or that they didn't. If, however, a child is actively sick and needs treatment to avoid death, then I still don't care why, but you get the child treatment or you lose the child and your freedom.

 

If we are truly honest and sincere in religious freedom, we take it to the level that allows all religious freedoms. Except in cases where society is in danger.

 

Well, how do you define religious freedom, and how do you define "harm to society"?

 

On the vaccination issue, there is no herd immunity. The percent of the population required to be vaccinated in order for "herd immunity" to take over varies by illness, and for some illnesses the herd threshold has not been reached by many states. So there is no herd immunity.

The CDC has also found that vaccinations do not provide lifelong immunity (which you get from the actual illness). Vaccination immunity wears off within 10 years, much quicker for some diseases. Some people have had boosters (military, hospital workers, people on foreign travel, college students, etc) but for the vast majority of the population above age 25-30 their vaccinations have worn off. Again, no herd immunity.

So why no epidemics? Because by the time people get to their early 20's, their immune system is mature and effective. And more importantly, the USA has an excellent quality of life with good water quality and sanitation, healthy diet, and shelter. The incidence of many illnesses decreased to near zero before the vaccines were available due to the increased quality of life.

 

If the religious freedom remains with in the confines of one's family or commune and all are there by choice, I understand children born into it are not necessarily by choice, then they can have their religious freedoms.
When it moves out into public, then the public will have a say if it's harmful to society.
Praying over a sick child isn't really harming society. And if this family is deeply christian, the end goal is to get to heaven. What better way to get their than to have God answer the prayers on living on this earth or going to heaven at that point in time.
Now if society wants to butt in and claim their is no God, where does that slippery slope end? What other religious freedoms can be taken?

 

This whole religious freedom thing would make an excellent South Park episode. Maybe Cartman sees the benefits that religious people get from the government, and when he goes to various religions' houses of worship, their absurdity inspires him to create the most absurd religion he possibly can, just to see how much he can take advantage of people's stupidity. Maybe Cartman would even have an ACLU lawyer protecting his "religious freedom."

 

I have to agree, it's sad for the child, but if a religious nut believer prayer will cure their child, we really can't stop them, to do so would be to say their religion is bunk and the government can not do that

 

If there is a God up in Heaven I have to imagine that He is looking down shaking His head thinking "Idiots, what do you think I made doctors for!?"

 

Sorry pal. I am not buying any of this. You understand that children are not there by choice, but…they should be subjected to irreversible harm or even death anyway? Your saying that what goes on in the home is no one’s business outside of the home. By that logic, you would also think that it’s OK for the parents to beat the kids three times a day if they believe that it will make them better persons and more likely to go to heaven- even if it means a few stops in jail, a mental hospital, or the homeless shelter on the way- because they were rendered damaged good by the abuse.

Praying over a sick child isn't really harming society? If it is to the exclusion of proper medical care it most certainly is. If that child is killed or injured, that is a loos to society. A person who might have been a productive member of society is now a burden on society.

Lastly, a society that allows cruelty to children is a damaged society. It is morally repugnant and not in keeping with current standards of decency and social justice. There are limits to all freedoms. Not too long ago, religious freedom meant the ability to worship, practice and speak about your faith openly and freely and to be free from having religion imposed on you. Now, the religious right has decided that it means that everyone else must live by their values. You can argue about whether or not a Christian should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but to claim that they should be allowed to cause a child’s death in the name of religious freedom is warped and reprehensible.

 

I said "in some parts of the country. I'm in New Jersey, a relatively civilized state as opposed to, say, the bible belt.

 

I'm going to call Red Herring" on that. Abortion is an entirely separate issue and fetuses and embryos are not children. Please confine your remarks to the topic.

 

NO, the "government " can say we are here to protect our citizens which includes your children. If you abuse them , and this is what it is, abuse/torture by sadists/mentally ill, then the "government " should step in and stop it. Those children did NOT lose their rights because they were born to bad people.

 

Just pointing out the blatant hipocracy. Why are you concerned with how others treat their human offspring?

 

sometimes the gov decides for you

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html

I understand what your saying, it is wrong in my eyes too, but not sure we can legal do anything about it if they say they are praying to cure the child, can congress pass a law saying prayer doesn't work, you must take a child to a hospital room


.

 

Hypocrisy? Really. Do you know what you just did. You used a logical fallacy to avoid dealing with the topic. It's a very special sort of fallacy and in fact my favorite one that I love to call people out on. Learn this word and you might become a better debater :

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

Why do I care about others offspring? That question is shockingly bizarre and callous. They are part of human society. We are all connected. It is warped and reprehensible not to care on a moral level alone. In addition, by allowing children to be mistreated in any way, will come back to haunt us all in very practical and tangible ways. Abused and neglected children are more likely to be less productive and dependent rather that fully functioning members of society. I have trouble believing that was actually a serious question.

 

What don't you get about child abuse being illegal ???????

Parents who do nothing when a child is ill are ABUSING that child . Claiming that they are helping that child by mouthing mumbo jumbo is NO defense.

 

I do not know that it is illegal, I think it's wrong, but congress shall make no law... and stuff

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

so as long as the parents believe they are helping the child by praying, are they breaking the law?

you may not like it, I may not like it, but is it illegal to try to use prayer to help your child?

.

 

How/why did you quote me if you didn't read my post?????

What don't you get about child abuse being illegal ??????? It IS illegal.
What planet are you on ???


Parents who do nothing when a child is ill are ABUSING that child . Claiming that they are helping that child by mouthing mumbo jumbo is NO defense.


You truly believe that if a child is sick and the parents lay it out in the woods and walk away that isn't child abuse???

Because that is exactly the same as claiming their mumbo jumbo play time Magic words will save their kid....

I suppose if you saw a man beating a child bloody you'd ask politely if it was for religious reasons and if he said yes, you would do NOTHING to help that child...Oh, that's not abuse, that's religion!!"" PUKE!


Do not wonder why I'm an atheist... I believe children should be cared for and protected....not left to sick fiends to kill... we disagree.


Christians may arrogantly think they're above the law but they're not.

 

Child abuse is illegal but when it comes to medical neglect, all too often there are exemptions as I documented in the OP attachment. Using prayer to supplement actual medical attention is not illegal. Using it to the exclusion of actual medical care should always be illegal, but is not always.

 

`
`
This isn't as uncommon as some think, ex: High court upholds convictions of 2 who let daughter die as they prayed - These are sick people. The state has a vested interest in the well being of all children and should take every legal step to see that parents like this are not allowed to care for children.

 

what could the government say, sorry you two, your adults, you should know prayer doesn't work by now, your under arrest

that is basically what the government would be saying, now of course most of us would agree, but does the court have the power to tell people prayer doesn't work

.

 

What don't you get about it is NOT forbidding people to say prayers or telling them prayer doesn't work.. It IS about protecting children from neglect and abuse.