# Religion as child abuse... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 27, 2000, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416 "2000-12-27T19:48:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2000, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/21 "2000-12-27T22:53:01Z")
> [@](#): > > I believe that intent is an important part of whether an act is intentional abuse or neglect. If you don’t give your kid medicine because you want to spend the money to buy crack or you just don’t care for the kid, that’s abuse and neglect. If you decided to treat a beloved child with TLC and prayer or the like because you love them and you think you are acting in the child’s best interest, you’d be hard-pressed to prove abuse or neglect. Nope sorry, that doesn’t work for me. If a doctor says your child needs X or she will die, that seems to me to be very good rationale for giving that child X. Belief that prayer, herbs, or spinnning on you head in circles, might help or it’s God’s will/Fate/Bad Luck that they die to _ **me** _ is neglect. We have doctors, the FDA, scientist and history to back us up on the effectiveness of medication. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2000, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/22 "2000-12-27T23:17:37Z")
> [@](#): > > If you believe that children should be taken away from parents because they are treated with TLC and prayer rather than modern Western medicine, than to avoid being an anti-religious bigot, you also must believe that children should be taken away from parents who practice other unorthodox forms of treatment, such as Ayurveda, alternative medicine, and Chinese herbal medicine. In at least some states,the law treats not providing medical care in the same way regardless of the reason. It doesn’t matter if the parents have religious beliefs against medical care or certain forms of it, or if they simply practice some other form of treatment because it’s their preference.If not providing medical care in a specific situation is neglect, it’s neglect for the Christian Scientist, the unaffiliated faith healer, the person who prefers herbal medicine and the person who just doesn’t care.In the places that treat them differently, it’s those doing it for religious reasons who are exempt from the law. And BTW, in my experience, the children usually are not “taken away” in the sense that they are put into foster homes when it’s for any reason except “just don’t care”.(doesn’t mean it never happens) If the child is in the hospital, the state may gain custody in order to consent to the treatment (for example a child of a Jehovah’s witness who needs a blood transfusion)and custody could then be returned to the parents when the child is ready to leave the hospital.In less of an emergency situation, the children may never leave the home, provided the parents agree to and do in fact provide the care. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2000, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/23 "2000-12-27T23:23:15Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Palandine \* > my parents were told that I would require surgery \*\* if the situation did not resolve in a week_\*. My mother lit a candle at church and prayed the night before my surgery. The next morning the hole in my lung had closed, and surgery was not necessary. Was that a miracle? Uh, Palandine…why would you even question this? it seems quite obvious that the medical community was fully aware that you could end up healing without intervention. They told your parents plainly that such healing, if it were to occur, should occur within a week. It did. Nothing supernatural about it. stoid ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2000, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/24 "2000-12-27T23:47:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Palandine \* > \*\* > > The damage done to society by infringing on that faith is worse than any damage that might happen to a child, as terrible as that is. > \*\* Yeah? Why is that exactly? \*\* > [@](#): > > If you believe that children should be taken away from parents because they are treated with TLC and prayer rather than modern Western medicine, than to avoid being an anti-religious bigot, you also must believe that children should be taken away from parents who practice other unorthodox forms of treatment, such as Ayurveda, alternative medicine, and Chinese herbal medicine. In the end, they’re all forms of parents forcing their views on their children. And you’d have to take children away from Amish communities as well, I presume. > \*\* Let’s see. On the one hand we have the demonstrable results of medical treatment, and on the other we have… nothing. Yes, if a parent has a child with leukemia and they treat them with coffee enemas or a voodoo doll, I would indeed hope that someone would get that kid out of there and to an oncologist. I do not advocate that the state take the kid away from the parents, just that it step in and allow the doctors to treat the kid over parental objection. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And, of course, (_Palandine takes time to don her flame-retardant long johns_) sometimes kids and adults get better with no treatment, just prayer. Make of that what you will. \*\* As soon as you have evidence to support that, I will. > [@](#): > > \*\*When I was eight my left lung collapsed after I’d had a serious chest infection for about a week. I was taken to the hospital, where my parents were told that I would require surgery if the situation did not resolve in a week. \*\* So the doctors thought it might resolve itself, and it did. Is this anecdote supposed to be evidence of anything? > [@](#): > > \*\*…but I do know I recovered from a serious illness with essentially no medical treatment. It does happen. And sometimes kids die with the very best care Western medicine can provide. \*\* Sure, but by your doctor’s own admission, you did not _need_ treatment at the time. And while medicine is never a 100% guarantee, it has a huge mountain of evidence behind it. It’s success is demonstrable, repeatable, and statistically undeniable. If faith healing or prayer ever achieves comparable success then I’ll certainly back off. > [@](#): > > \*\* > None of which changes the fact that we have a nation of rights, and one of those rights is to practice faith free from government interference and raise children according to personal beliefs. \*\* Surely you aren’t arguing for absolute rights are you? As with **every** right we have, religious freedom is not an absolute one. One standard the government often uses in determining whether it should step in and prevent the exercise of a particular right is when said exercise demonstrably endangers another’s life. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, build pipe bombs in your apartment, or sacrifice a kid to Baal. Neither should exercising your religious freedom sentence a kid to death. > [@](#): > > \*\*I believe that intent is an important part of whether an act is intentional abuse or neglect. If you don’t give your kid medicine because you want to spend the money to buy crack or you just don’t care for the kid, that’s abuse and neglect. If you decided to treat a beloved child with TLC and prayer or the like because you love them and you think you are acting in the child’s best interest, you’d be hard-pressed to prove abuse or neglect. > \*\* While intent is important, it’s hardly germane as to whether or not the kid deserves treatment. The state should step in and insure proper medical care whether the parents are hateful child-beaters or lovingly awaiting the intercession of David Koresh. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2000, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/25 "2000-12-27T23:53:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stuffinb \* > \*\*… to me LIFE is more important than letting someone die because of a religious belief. > \*\* And there you have the difference between a religious person and the non-religious. There have been millions who have willingly died for their religious beliefs. They’re martyrs, almost every religion has them, and hundreds more are added every year. Obviously, the difference is that most martyrs were adults choosing their own fate; but my point is that the idea that staying alive trumps all other concerns is fundamentally out of sync with most religions. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/26 "2000-12-28T00:10:25Z")
Big difference there, which seems to be escaping those arguing it. You may **give** your life for your faith in martyrdom. That’s your privilege. It’s yours to do with as you wish; religion and secular philosophy are united on this. You may not **take** the life of another based on your faith. And that is valid whether you’re talking active human sacrifice or passive failure to provide medical care on doctrinal grounds. (BTW, any Christian with the “gift of healing” as a valid charisma of the Holy Spirit, presuming such a thing exists, will tell you to get the best medical care you can and then pray over you for healing; God gave those doctors their calling and helped them develop their skill, too. The “trust in faith alone” charlatans are just that.) In the absence of consensus on religious belief on this board, YM of course MV. But that would be my bottom line. ---
**Author:** ![Peculiar\_Pixie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@Peculiar\_Pixie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peculiar_Pixie)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/27 "2000-12-28T00:40:35Z")
From Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance: > [@](#): > > Although this web site promotes tolerance of religious belief, **this tolerance does not extend to those religiously motivated behaviors and practices which harm other people.** There are many illnesses and disorders that are potentially fatal, yet can be easily treated. We do not object to adults pursuing alternatives to medical treatment if they have been fully informed in advance of the effectiveness of each alternative. **We object when parents decide to prevent the medical treatment of children in the case of easily cured illness or disorders.** Emphasis mine. If this is what a site that exists solely for the promotion of tolerance has to say on the subject, all those crying “slippery slope” should perhaps take a moment to think. ---
**Author:** ![ScoobyTX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@ScoobyTX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ScoobyTX)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/28 "2000-12-28T02:12:11Z")
For the most part, any medical treatment involves risk of adverse outcome. That is why doctors are highly trained, and their decisions highly scrutinized. The child that is easily cured by penicillin could also be easily killed by a bad reaction to penicillin. Is it “abuse” to subject a child to overly heroic efforts to preserve his/her life above all else? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/29 "2000-12-28T03:16:12Z")
I agree with the OP, except that rather than “taking them away” I believe that they should just be required to allow the medical care for any child under 16. After 16, the child can make their own choices. As a side note, in a sort of socially interesting way, I live in the city where both the 16-year-old mentioned above and the couple who only fed their child lettuce and watermelon come from (in Pennsylvania). The parents of the 16-year-old girl (the Nixons) have also had two other children die from lack of medical care. Faith Tabernacle (the congregation that the Nixons belong to) is a pretty controversial church around here, mostly because of the Nixons and a few other families whose children died of easily treatable diseases. And it should be noted that the son of the other couple _had_ been taken away from them and placed in the hospital before the incident where they disappeared into the desert. They kidnapped him from the hospital and fled. Apparently, taking the children away doesn’t always work. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/30 "2000-12-28T04:52:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eve \* > \*\*I also know some gay people who are seriously, psycholically messed up because they were raised Catholic. As far as I’m concerned, telling a gay child that he is evil and going to hell is child abuse. \*\* How the hell is the Catholic Church suppose to identify homosexual children? Marc ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/31 "2000-12-28T04:59:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alessan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Saying ‘we must do x’ to protect children is a slippery slope type of argument. People, adults and children, die every day. It’s just part of life. > > Yeah, it’s a slippery slope type of argument. _So fucking what?_ There are worst things in life than slipping down your precious slope, and saving children is one of them. > > Let’s get this straight - protecting children’s lives is more important than “Freedom of Speech”, “Freedom of Religion” or “Right to bear arms”. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the primary pupose of _any_ human society. So spare me the hypotheticals. > > \*\* Well actually we don’t have this straight. What the hell ever happened to caring about adults? I’m really sick and tired of people trotting out children for every damn cause there is. Protecting children isn’t the most important thing in the world. I’m an adult and I’m just as human as them. So spare us all the “save the children” tripe. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/32 "2000-12-28T05:02:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > I don’t see why an intelligent, mentally competent person would deny their precious child medical care if it would save their life. Aren’t these sheep in people’s clothing too incompetent to be caring for children in the first place? Too bad people are allowed to reproduce without a license. \*\* That’s how I feel about religous people in general. How can intelligent, mentally competent people believe X is true? Truth is some people believe that the medical care will taint the persons soul and they won’t get into heaven. Silly? Sure. Marc ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/33 "2000-12-28T05:18:51Z")
There we go again. Blood transfusions is not the be-all and end-all of medical treatment that all of you depict, and should not be put into the same vein like penecillin, anti-biotics and vaccination, which JW’s do take. No matter how well-tested the supply is, blood still carries a lot of risk that doesn’t warrant forcible capituation religious freedom. The ban on UK blood because of CJD is proof to me about the wisdom of the JW’s position on blood. Notice that I am not Bible-thumping here. Note if a court rules that a child should be forced to undergo a transfusion, and the child winds up with AIDS because of it, then there is no way one can sue the court. There are alternative treatments, including bloodless surgery and artificial blood, that should be explred. Even surgeons do no want to shed as much blood during operations. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/34 "2000-12-28T05:39:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\* > > Well actually we don’t have this straight. What the hell ever happened to caring about adults? I’m really sick and tired of people trotting out children for every damn cause there is. Protecting children isn’t the most important thing in the world. I’m an adult and I’m just as human as them. So spare us all the “save the children” tripe. > > Marc \*\* Marc, I’ve encountered your opinions before, and I respect them. You believe that a government’s primery purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens. Fine. _I_ believe that protecting people’s rights is important as well - but not as important as saving people’s lives, especially the lives of those incapable of protecting themselves. I will be moved from my belief the same day you will be moved from yours, which will be the day David B finds Jesus. I know that a concilliatory attitue is inappropriate for the GD, but I suggest we simply agree to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/35 "2000-12-28T06:46:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\*There we go again. \*\* _sigh_ Yup. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Blood transfusions is not the be-all and end-all of medical treatment that all of you depict, and should not be put into the same vein like penecillin, anti-biotics and vaccination, which JW’s do take. \*\* Nobody is promoting transfusions as a panacea. Yet they are a time-tested, standard medical treatment used to save many thousands of lives. > [@](#): > > \*\* > No matter how well-tested the supply is, blood still carries a lot of risk that doesn’t warrant forcible capituation religious freedom. The ban on UK blood because of CJD is proof to me about the wisdom of the JW’s position on blood. Notice that I am not Bible-thumping here. \*\* A “lot of risk” capacitor? Care to quantify that any? The fact is that complications arising from transfusions are extremely rare, and are **far** outweighed by the benefits of transfusions as has been proven in emergency rooms across the country every day for many years. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Note if a court rules that a child should be forced to undergo a transfusion, and the child winds up with AIDS because of it, then there is no way one can sue the court. \*\* So your point here is what exactly? That it is unacceptable for a fatal outcome to result from government action in a tiny fraction of a percent of cases, but is perfectly acceptable in a large number of cases so long as it was the parents’ choice? > [@](#): > > \*\* > There are alternative treatments, including bloodless surgery and artificial blood, that should be explred. Even surgeons do no want to shed as much blood during operations. \*\* And people are actively working toward developing those blood substitutes. Nobody would like to have them more than doctors. They would like to help people, even foolish ones, and they aren’t exactly thrilled about that tiny percentage of infected blood. So if they can find a substitute the JWs would allow it would make them ecstatically happy. So far, unfortunately, none have been entirely successful. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/36 "2000-12-28T07:24:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Marc, I’ve encountered your opinions before, and I respect them. You believe that a government’s primery purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens. Fine. _I_ believe that protecting people’s rights is important as well - but not as important as saving people’s lives, especially the lives of those incapable of protecting themselves. I will be moved from my belief the same day you will be moved from yours, which will be the day David B finds Jesus. \*\* Personally I believe that the best way for the government to save lives is by protecting our rights. In fact I do have a serious problem with parents who refuse to allow procedures that have a good chance of saving a sick child’s life. The problem is very complex because we’re getting into some serious religious freedoms. The courts have typically been reluctant to infringe on religious beliefs and tend to give them an awful lot of leeway. What I really really took exception to was your statement regarding protecting children’s lives as being “…the primary purpose of any human society…” I really think that is a big pile of horse hockey. The needs of children do not outweigh the needs of us young adults, those middle aged people, or the elderly for that matter. I actually like children I just don’t consider them the end all be all of human existence. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I know that a concilliatory attitue is inappropriate for the GD, but I suggest we simply agree to disagree. \*\* We can always agree to disagree, that’s fine. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Mekhazzio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b38774/32.png) [@Mekhazzio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mekhazzio)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/37 "2000-12-28T11:45:10Z")
What about the Amish? Anyone know their take on the issue? Personally, if a kid croaks because of a parent’s beliefs, I figure that’s hard knocks. “I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it” doesn’t seem too ridiculous to me (yeah, yeah, so it’s callous). A dead kid at least doesn’t go out and commit Unspeakable Atrocitires to satisfy their inner demons like a terminally-screwed-up-but-living kid would…and really, these are mostly good people, if you just ignore the gaping chasm their train of logic must eventually go over. In this case, I’d have to say the damage inflicted is strictly limited to themselves, so the nutso factor involved is more or less harmless to the rest of society. Thus, no to interfering with their nutball beliefs. I don’t want anyone beating down my door over my own harmless nutball beliefs, so I’ll extend the same courtesy to others. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/38 "2000-12-28T13:42:13Z")
“How the hell is the Catholic Church suppose to identify homosexual children?” —Well, approx. one out of every ten children is gay. So just figure when you tell your kids that homosexuality is evil and a sin, and homosexuals go to hell, one in ten of those kids will wind up emotionally injured and possibly suicidal. Can’t spot that one in ten when they’re young? Then maybe the intelligent thing to do is not bring the subject up in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/39 "2000-12-28T13:46:40Z")
“Personally, if a kid croaks because of a parent’s beliefs, I figure that’s hard knocks. “I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it” doesn’t seem too ridiculous to me (yeah, yeah, so it’s callous).” —So, umm, we should just let Susan Smith ouit of jail with an apology and a dozen roses? ---
**Author:** ![labdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/5fc32e/32.png) [@labdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/labdude)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2000, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/40 "2000-12-28T14:58:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alessan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Saying ‘we must do x’ to protect children is a slippery slope type of argument. People, adults and children, die every day. It’s just part of life. > > Yeah, it’s a slippery slope type of argument. _So fucking what?_ There are worst things in life than slipping down your precious slope, and saving children is one of them. > > Let’s get this straight - protecting children’s lives is more important than “Freedom of Speech”, “Freedom of Religion” or “Right to bear arms”. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the primary pupose of _any_ human society. So spare me the hypotheticals. > \*\* One, children are no more or less valuable than anyone else. Saying we must trample on peoples religous freedoms because it’s necessary to ‘save the children’ is a load of bull. Two, you left out my best example. Many people want to ban abortion ‘to save the children.’ There are limits to what people are willing to do in order to ‘save that children.’ Three, the parents in question are not guilty of neglecting their children. They are paying close attention at choosing a treatment method that they feel is best. (Admittedly a method that is not scientifically proven) Four, considering recent election results I don’t think your point of view has much chance of becomming law. There is a strong streak of religous fundamentalism running in this country. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416.md?page=3)