Parents convicted of murder for using faith-healing on unconscious 11 year old daughter.

[Omar B]

Where is that quote from...because it's not in the bible if that is what is implied.

I was not quoting the bible, I was pointing out one of the common tropes christians usually bandy about.

 

[Satt]

I was not quoting the bible, I was pointing out one of the common tropes christians usually bandy about.

You are right. Many Christians do bandy about this, which is sad seeing as how the book they claim to believe in says quite the opposite. Nevertheless, it is silly to sit around letting your child die no matter what you believe.

 

[arnisador]

"God helps those who helps themselves"

Where is that quote from...because it's not in the bible if that is what is implied.

It's the result of applying the scientific method to study what happens when people pray for something. Such things only happen if the people praying do it for themselves.

"Trust God but tie your camel first"--an Arab proverb.

In other words, use the common sense He gave you.

More like an effort to make God's non-existence unprovable...the fact that God didn't help you can't be construed as evidence he isn't there.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Dearly B-lov-ed...

We are...gathered here....to-day....

To...mourn...the loss of a...

...good.....

...friend....

...ashes to ashes...

...dust to dust....

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Just, WOW!

How ironic is it that some profess how self-righteous others are while condeming a culture that they don't even know. To the point of calling them lazy, and that they blame people's problems on their lack of faith. You know nothing about these particular people, and yet apparently you know all about their personal beliefs. Amazing....

For those of you who believe that the government should get involved here, I suggest you stop decrying our involvement in other nations of the world in policing actions. You argue that it is our responsiblity to stop this type of thing from happening, but yet most of you would argue that we have no right to protect, for instance, the women in other countries from being stoned for "getting themselves raped". Why. Because they have a different culture. Well, what's good for the goose and all.......

And this whole argument about common sence. Give me a break. The concept of common sense is based on a shared cultural value system. Do you honestly believe that what those in the Middle East, Africa, or even Europe would call common sense is the same as that in the United States? And for those of you that advocate multi-culturalism, how then can you judge these people? If we are to be accepting of different cultural values in this great system we call the United States, then how can we demean and belittle those that think differently then us? That then is the height of hypocrisy.

And for those of you that have your version of Christianity, I applaud your confidence in your beliefs, I really do. But, even though I may believe in a God (no hyphenated "O" by the way, which I really don't understand), I find it arrogant and presumptuous that you feel that you completely understand the will of God. How do you know that God would not feel that putting medicine before God is a sin? Even if I agree with you, at least I am comfortable in the fact that there is no possible way that I could understand a being as omnipotent as God, and may possibly be wrong in my belief. And having that understanding, still maintain my belief in the righteousness of my position, but not be arrogant enough that it MUST be the right way.

I really believe that rather that most of you have an emotional investment in the things that you believe, rather then understanding how you think, or what psychiatry would call, meta-cognition, the understanding of how you think. I think that if you would pay more attention to that, you would make more coherent arumenatations.

 

[CanuckMA]

But, even though I may believe in a God (no hyphenated "O" by the way, which I really don't understand)

Judaism has rules for the disposal of anything that has the Names of G-d written on them. To prevent the accidental destruction of non-sacred textxs, we ae in the habit of writting G-d with an hyphen. Although there has been serious debates as to whether a computer display forms a permanent wtriting or not, and the usual consensus is that it does not, it is a habit that we find hard to break.

 

[girlbug2]

More like an effort to make God's non-existence unprovable...the fact that God didn't help you can't be construed as evidence he isn't there.

Now here we have a catch 22. If I had written something to advocate blind faith, I would have been accused of being weak, needing faith as a crutch, or just plain stupidity. But since I wrote something advocating the use of common sense, I am accused of employing circular logic.

There's just no winning with the Angry Agnostics!

 

[jarrod]

For those of you who believe that the government should get involved here, I suggest you stop decrying our involvement in other nations of the world in policing actions. You argue that it is our responsiblity to stop this type of thing from happening, but yet most of you would argue that we have no right to protect, for instance, the women in other countries from being stoned for "getting themselves raped". Why. Because they have a different culture. Well, what's good for the goose and all.......

what do other countries have to do with this? protecting it's own citizens is one of the primary functions of a nation. i guess if i have a kid, i'll just pray that god puts milk in it's mouth, or pray that it doesn't drown while unsupervised in the bath tub. this is just a case of simple negligence; attaching a religious doctrine to it doesn't change anything. people should in fact be free to observe their faith as they see fit, until their practices start to hurt others, including their own children. i've heard people use scripture to justify racisim, sexism, rape, & child abuse. if you denied your child medical treatment for any other reason, you would be guilty of negligence. jesus very clearly stated that christians are to obey the law of the land so long as they do not contradict god's law. it's kind of like polygamy in the early morman church; i don't have a problem with polygamy per se, but it's illegal here. so if your religion allows it, you have to practice it somewhere else.

jf

 

[arnisador]

For those of you who believe that the government should get involved here

...in the death of an 11 year old child...

I suggest you stop decrying our involvement in other nations of the world in policing actions. You argue that it is our responsiblity to stop this type of thing from happening, but yet most of you would argue that we have no right to protect, for instance, the women in other countries from being stoned for "getting themselves raped". Why.

Because trying to enforce U.S. law on Iran would involve starting a war on a third front. Other countries aren't part of the U.S.--that's what makes them other countries.

If we are to be accepting of different cultural values in this great system we call the United States, then how can we demean and belittle those that think differently then us? That then is the height of hypocrisy.

We're a nation of laws. Neglecting to care for your children is against the law. The law is based on our cultural history but now it's the law. There are ways to change the laws.

I really believe that rather that most of you have an emotional investment in the things that you believe, rather then understanding how you think, or what psychiatry would call, meta-cognition

That's a concept of the science of psychology, not the medical discipline of psychiatry.

the understanding of how you think. I think that if you would pay more attention to that, you would make more coherent arumenatations.

Yes, paying attention to details seems like good advice.

 

[Tez3]

Whether you believe in a deity or not, it's patently obvious to most of us that sitting on your backside waiting for others, human or spirit, to sort your life out for you and to expect medical care to fall out of the sky, is extremely stupid as well as lazy.

Canuck, often when there's long posts or there's several posts I want to read I have to print it out as I find reading large tracts of print online difficult so I will use the hyphenated version as I have to shred the pages afterwards.

 

[DergaSmash]

Word. Negligence.


It makes sense for that to happen though. If you believe snakes really talk, or people can live to be hundreds of years old, or that a man lived inside a big fish for 3 days, things like this are bound to happen.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Because trying to enforce U.S. law on Iran would involve starting a war on a third front. Other countries aren't part of the U.S.--that's what makes them other countries.

If people were making that argument, then I would accept it. But that's not what people are doing. They are saying that our government should not allow these things to occur. Or are you actually saying that some lives are more important than others, at least in the eyes of the government. Please say yes, because then I will show the lack of coherence in other positions.

We're a nation of laws. Neglecting to care for your children is against the law. The law is based on our cultural history but now it's the law. There are ways to change the laws.

Again, that is why I said in the beginning that I was not making a legal argument, but a philosophical / moral one.

That's a concept of the science of psychology, not the medical discipline of psychiatry.

Ok, so you are going to try to be pedantic with me. The fact of the matter is that psychiatrists do use the concept of meta-cognition, even though it is a concept of psychology. And they call it the same thing. Based on my phrasing, I was more than accurate enough.

Yes, paying attention to details seems like good advice.

So now you're making an attack based on the misspelling of one word. I have come to expect more from you then that. I can now see that I should lower them.

Oh, and when you start showing people who agree with you their spelling and grammatical mistakes, then perhaps I'll start to take you seriously. But until then, keep showing your true colors.....

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

what do other countries have to do with this? protecting it's own citizens is one of the primary functions of a nation.

Again, now that is a new argument that people are bringing into the mix. People were attacking these couple's religion and saying that we should interfere in their right to worship as they please, except under certain circumstances. I brought that up to show the inconsistencies of that argument.

i guess if i have a kid, i'll just pray that god puts milk in it's mouth, or pray that it doesn't drown while unsupervised in the bath tub. this is just a case of simple negligence; attaching a religious doctrine to it doesn't change anything

Ahhh... But there is the kicker. This is only a story to bring up here only because of the religious attachment to it. I have a feeling that is why it was posted here in the first place. People have continually attacked religion / Christianity in this thread, rather then just say that it was simply a sad situation.

people should in fact be free to observe their faith as they see fit, until their practices start to hurt others, including their own children.

I agree, to an extent. Because then we have to define what is harmful. And there is where we start to have a debate into the intrusion of government into the personal lives of individuals and groups. And what I see here is that those who are always arguing the condemnation of the government for intrusions are saying that we can now get involved in the relationship between people and their religion, and the raising of children.

i've heard people use scripture to justify racisim, sexism, rape, & child abuse. if you denied your child medical treatment for any other reason, you would be guilty of negligence.

I have also seen science used to justify racism, sexism, rape, and child abuse. But that is my point.

Here is a question for you then: If these people had taken their child to a naturopathic / Chinese medicine doctor, and the child had still died, would you still believe that they are guilty of negligence?

jesus very clearly stated that christians are to obey the law of the land so long as they do not contradict god's law. it's kind of like polygamy in the early morman church; i don't have a problem with polygamy per se, but it's illegal here. so if your religion allows it, you have to practice it somewhere else.

Again, I am making a philosophical argument, not a legal one. According to the law, if they are supposed to be in jail, then so be it.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Word. Negligence.


It makes sense for that to happen though. If you believe snakes really talk, or people can live to be hundreds of years old, or that a man lived inside a big fish for 3 days, things like this are bound to happen.

Nope, nothing self-righteous there.....


But let's just keep attacking Christians for having the corner market on that....

 

[jarrod]

Again, now that is a new argument that people are bringing into the mix. People were attacking these couple's religion and saying that we should interfere in their right to worship as they please, except under certain circumstances. I brought that up to show the inconsistencies of that argument.

but protecting people in other nations shouldn't be a major concern for our government. protecting our own should be, & that's why this is important. maybe i'm missing something here; i don't really get who you're arguing with on this one.

Ahhh... But there is the kicker. This is only a story to bring up here only because of the religious attachment to it. I have a feeling that is why it was posted here in the first place. People have continually attacked religion / Christianity in this thread, rather then just say that it was simply a sad situation.

well of course it is, because if they had let the kid die because they were too strung out on heroine or just really bad parents or whatever, there would be no question of whether they should be prosecuted. that doesn't make it an attack on religion, it just raises the question of how much leeway should be given in the name of religious freedom.

I agree, to an extent. Because then we have to define what is harmful. And there is where we start to have a debate into the intrusion of government into the personal lives of individuals and groups. And what I see here is that those who are always arguing the condemnation of the government for intrusions are saying that we can now get involved in the relationship between people and their religion, and the raising of children.

forbidding membership in certain churches is interfering with how you raise your child. closing private christian schools is interfering. not allowing kids out of public schools to observe religious holidays is interfering. not letting your kid die of neglect isn't interfering, it's just a very simple law that's designed to protect kids. not from religion, but from, you know, dying.

I have also seen science used to justify racism, sexism, rape, and child abuse. But that is my point.

& there are protections to prevent that from being legal or socially acceptable in most cases. why does religion get a free ride?

Here is a question for you then: If these people had taken their child to a naturopathic / Chinese medicine doctor, and the child had still died, would you still believe that they are guilty of negligence?

i'll have to think about that, but that's not the case here. i guess one difference is that in the example you mention they are at least actively seeking help. but let's take it the other way; when somebody kills their kid because god told them to, should they get away with it? i mean, how did we know god didn't really tell them to?

Again, I am making a philosophical argument, not a legal one. According to the law, if they are supposed to be in jail, then so be it.

fair enough. the bottom line is that societies usually don't knowingly allow behavior that is perceived as detrimental to the group, whatever the justification. i think you may be reading too much into this as some sort of attack on religious freedoms, rather than a simple case homicide by neglect.

jf

 

[DergaSmash]

Easy 5-0, I'm not trying to be self righteous. It just doesn't make sense to me that we can expect rational actions and thoughts from someone who's very beliefs are irrational.

For me it all comes down to this. Sad or not, faith or not, stupid is stupid.

 

[Omar B]

Ahhh... But there is the kicker. This is only a story to bring up here only because of the religious attachment to it. I have a feeling that is why it was posted here in the first place. People have continually attacked religion / Christianity in this thread, rather then just say that it was simply a sad situation.

But it's their belief system that made them not seek medical care for the child. Should we attack something else when the plain cause of it is their irrational belief? They didn't take the kid to the doctor because they thought their god would cure the child if they prayed, and that's why I'm attacking their religion.

 

[DergaSmash]

I'm with Omar on this one. I'm all for people's individual liberty, but when it's killing children, then it's time for some intervention.

 

[arnisador]

Or are you actually saying that some lives are more important than others, at least in the eyes of the government. Please say yes

In the eyes of the government, they have a duty to their citizens but not to the citizens of other countries. It's not a matter of importance--it's a matter of responsibility.

So now you're making an attack based on the misspelling of one word. I have come to expect more from you then that. I can now see that I should lower them.

Oh, and when you start showing people who agree with you their spelling and grammatical mistakes

It was neither of the above. You're also confusing those concepts.

 

[Carol]

I would have liked to hear the reasoning for both sides in this case. I wasn't able to find anything official, so I did a bit of digging and tried to piece together my own reasoning.

The commentary that I heard was that the laws in WI conflict, because parents who resort to faith healing have protection under the law.

The strongest appears to be WI 948.03(6)

Treatment through prayer. A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing permitted under:

s. 48.981 (3) (c) 4 ["A determination that abuse or neglect has occurred may not be based solely on the fact that the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian in good faith selects and relies on prayer or other religious means for treatment of disease or for remedial care of the child"]

or

s. 448.03 (6) ["No law of this state regulating the practice of medicine and surgery may be construed to interfere with the practice of Christian Science."]

in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.


From my armchair:

- The Neumanns were not Christian Scientists. 448.03 does not apply.

- 948.03 are all child abuse statutes that address harm to a child. None of the statutes in that section address death of a child. Its my understanding that child abuse means that the child was harmed but survived.

- The Neumanns were not charged with crimes in the 948.03 section. They were charged in 940.06. These are the statutes for 2nd Degree Reckless Homicide.

Therefore....I think the Neumanns were within the law until Kara died. I also think the conviction is sound.

I think its due to this very high bar (death) that faith-healing practices have been able to enjoy certain protections under the law. Hygiene, sanitation, and food preparation practices make it highly possible for a child to reach the age of 18 without dying.