Does faith healing infringe on fundamental liberties?

[RationalThought]

Faith healing and neglect was established as abuse in my first post, there is no needed for presupposition at this point of the debate.

Let's look at it from another aspect of abuse and remove faith healing. If a parent is physically or mentally abusing a child does the state have a right to step in and protect the child's rights? Liberties are not infinite; they are limited by man’s capacity to do evil.

You refuse to equate for the well-being of the child independently. In the extreme cases of any form of abuse or neglect when a life is on the line, how can you not see one option as unequivocally better for the child’s interests (State vs Parent)?

[Meleagar]

False- this is absolutely critical to the point. This isn't some speculative question about whether we 'believe'- it's a question grounded in empirics. Empirical, objective observation says that faith healing does nothing, just as it says that objects fall when you drop them and that medical science is effective.

It's not only "not critical" to the point; it is entirely irrelevant. I am not ordered by the constitution or any law to make my decisions - even those that have to do with my children - according to scientific consensus.

These parents are giving their child a 'treatment' which emprics say is equivalent to doing nothing.

Irrelevant.

It's like having a child who's starving to death and, instead of using the empirically-verified solution (feeding them), the parents opted to pray over their child and hope that that would somehow magically stave off malnutrition. Those parents would be willfully negligent and, consequently, criminally liable for the harm that comes to their child. This is no different.

I never said the parent shouldn't be held liable for actual harm that befalls the child. If they pray for miracle feeding, and the child becomes malnourished, that is actual harm and the parents should be appropriately punished for the unintentional actual harm that came to their child - same as in the faith healing case.

I'm arguing that we should use this universal tool as the basis for policy- we should gauge whether something is effective based not on one person's utterly baseless "beliefs" about it, but by the amalgamation of millions of people's observations, since the latter is more accurate, credible and easily verified. If we didn't use an empirical metric to make and enforce laws, social order would collapse; I could machine gun a crowded mall and simply claim "oh, but I don't believe anyone is actually dying. That's my religious belief and you have no right to tell me otherwise!"

I didn't say we shouldn't use science; I said that it is irrelevant in this case. My point is that where science and religion conflict, I have a constitutionally protected freedom of relgion and right to express it, and if exclusionary faith healing is a sincere expression of my religion, then such expression is guaranteed by the constitution. What is not protected by the constitution is any harm I might actually cause others while I express my religion. If others are harmed, or if I intend to harm others (or otherwise infringe on their rights), then and only then is my right to practice my religion superceded by the rights of others.

As I said before rights have limits. If they didn't then I could justify any illegal or harmful action on the grounds that it was my religion to commit those actions.

I agree that rights have limits. We just disagree where those limits are.

Yes, YOU, as an individual, have every right to practice your religion, you do not have the right to actively and seriously endanger your children in the name of that same religion.

I don't have the right to deliberately endanger them, but that isn't what is going on in sincere faith-healing situations. Parents unintentionally endanger their children all the time - every time they put them in a car or let them do things unsupervised.

I'm curious, though: if it were a sincerely-held religious belief, would you support allowing parents to sacrifice their newborn infants to appease Moloch, the bloodthirsty Phonecian god who demanded child sacrifice of his followers?

Of course not. They are intentionally killing their child.

Find me a social contract or constitutional theorist who doesn't, on some level, endorse the idea that the state ought to protect its citizens and I'll find you a unicorn.

I'll take that as an admission that you cannot find that in any of the founding documents.

More importantly, this is about implicit police powers held by states- it doesn't need to be in the constitution because this isn't a federal issue. States would prosecute this just as they would any other case of criminal negligence- courts and centuries of common law recognize that states hold inherent 'police powers' to protect their citizens. Sure, those powers aren't absolute, but it shows a fundamental recognition that states may take action to protect the lives of citizens- then the question isn't whether they have the authority to do this, but whether they ought to do this.

The state and the police do not "protect" citizens; only citizens can protect themselves. The police investigate crimes and arrest suspects after the crime, and the state attempts to incarcerate them via a trial process. The police and the state become involved only when a crime has been committed, or they have good reason to suspect that one is intended.

Until a child is harmed, and unless someone is intending on harming the child, the state should have no interest in the issue.

No one is saying you can't believe faith healing works- we're saying you can't endanger your children. This is about belief versus action.

The court has generally ruled otherwise. So, you are in fact wrong. Some states have granted protections against prosecution even if the child dies; but most allow the parents to make the attempt, and only prosecute them if they fail - which is as I said it should be. If the parents make the attempt and the child becomes worse and worse, then on occasion, in a few states, the state intervenes - but that is rare.

This whole discussion is getting a bit messy, but I really want your answer to this question: if you believe that the government can never tell you to not follow your religion,

I never said anything of the sort. Try reading what I have written once again. You are recharacterizing my postion into an extremist, straw man version, simply because you consider my position extreme.

[Meleagar]

Faith healing and neglect was established as abuse in my first post, there is no needed for presupposition at this point of the debate.

Established how? It's not considered abuse or neglect by federal or most state law.

If a parent is physically or mentally abusing a child does the state have a right to step in and protect the child's rights?

Of course. As I said before, intent and protection of religious freedom is the issue.

Liberties are not infinite; they are limited by man’s capacity to do evil.

No, they are limited (in most cases) by either the act of harming another, or infringing on their rights, or the intent to do so. Qualifying some behavior as "evil" in order to abrograte the rights of others can come back to bite you in the rear.

You refuse to equate for the well-being of the child independently.

What does "equte for" mean? In order for the state to have the right to intervene, the child must first be harmed by the parent. In most states, that I know of, faith healing is not a crime, nor is it considered abuse or neglect. It certainly isn't seen that way at the federal level.

In the extreme cases of any form of abuse or neglect when a life is on the line, how can you not see one option as unequivocally better for the child’s interests (State vs Parent)?

Faith healing is not classified as abuse or neglect, as far as I know, in any state. I understand that you believe it to be abuse and neglect, but I and the law disagree. Some states protect the parents from any prosecution in faith healing situations even if the child dies.

[RationalThought]

It's established by the fact a guilty verdict was reached in less than an hour by a jury of their peers. ( Up to five years in prison, but the sentencing isn't until the 24th of this month.)

[Meleagar]

It's established by the fact a guilty verdict was reached in less than an hour by a jury of their peers. ( Up to five years in prison, but the sentencing isn't until the 24th of this month.)

They were charged because the faith healing resulted in the child being harmed, not because they were attempting to faith heal the child - as I have said repeatedly, when a faith healing fails and the child actually comes to harm, then the parents and/or faith healer should be charged with the appropriate crime.

IOW, faith healing itself has not been determined to be abuse or neglect, just as standard medical care has not been determined to be abuse or neglect; however, those who attempt to apply faith healing, or attempt to apply standard medical care, can be prosecuted for abuse or neglect or malpractice if their attempt results in a harmed patient.

You are mistaking the finding to be about the practice of faith healing, and not about the result. If it was about the practice, then faith healing would be illegal.

[Second as Farce]

It's not only "not critical" to the point; it is entirely irrelevant. I am not ordered by the constitution or any law to make my decisions - even those that have to do with my children - according to scientific consensus.

Wrong again- you could "believe" that feeding your kids arsenic is harmless, but the law, based on scientific consensus, compels you to act otherwise.

I never said the parent shouldn't be held liable for actual harm that befalls the child. If they pray for miracle feeding, and the child becomes malnourished, that is actual harm and the parents should be appropriately punished for the unintentional actual harm that came to their child - same as in the faith healing case.

So only intervene after the harm has been done instead of trying to prevent it from happening? What kind of logic is that? Should a police officer not try to stop someone conspiring to commit a crime?

I didn't say we shouldn't use science; I said that it is irrelevant in this case. My point is that where science and religion conflict, I have a constitutionally protected freedom of relgion and right to express it, and if exclusionary faith healing is a sincere expression of my religion, then such expression is guaranteed by the constitution. What is not protected by the constitution is any harm I might actually cause others while I express my religion. If others are harmed, or if I intend to harm others (or otherwise infringe on their rights), then and only then is my right to practice my religion superceded by the rights of others.

(Emphasis mine, obviously) ...and that's the ball game, folks. Once you admit that the right to religious exercise can be limited "if others are harmed," and failing to provide adequate medical care can cause serious, life-threatening harm to the child, then the state intervening is justified in this case.

The state and the police do not "protect" citizens; only citizens can protect themselves. The police investigate crimes and arrest suspects after the crime, and the state attempts to incarcerate them via a trial process. The police and the state become involved only when a crime has been committed, or they have good reason to suspect that one is intended.

Until a child is harmed, and unless someone is intending on harming the child, the state should have no interest in the issue.

Ok- first, go look up the definition of "police powers." It's a fundamental part of American common law which can be defined as "the authority conferred upon the states by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and which the states delegate to their political subdivisions to enact measures to preserve and protect the safety, health, Welfare, and morals of the community." So... no, the state can protect citizens. That's kind of its job...

Also, this is utter nonsense- law enforcement serves as a prophylactic against crime. If you are in the process of unintentionally endangering your child, then you are engaging in criminal negligence, which is a crime. People who refuse to seek medical care for sick children are in the ongoing process of committing that crime. To suggest that the state is powerless until a harm has been incurred is 1- factually incorrect and 2- ridiculous.

[Second as Farce]

Oh, sorry- I realized I missed a part of your post. My bad.

The police and the state become involved only when a crime has been committed, or they have good reason to suspect that one is intended.

...or when someone is recklessly endangering the health and wellbeing of another. If I'm driving drunk, I may not intend to harm others, but my reckless actions endanger them nonetheless and the police can arrest me for that.

[Meleagar]

Wrong again- you could "believe" that feeding your kids arsenic is harmless, but the law, based on scientific consensus, compels you to act otherwise.

No, it doesn't. Only my belief compels me to act. The law only becomes involved if the child is actually harmed, or if I was trying to harm the child.

So only intervene after the harm has been done instead of trying to prevent it from happening?

That's the basis of a free nation where individual liberties are guaranteed. Otherwise, you get smiley-face, nanny fascism.

(Emphasis mine, obviously) ...and that's the ball game, folks. Once you admit that the right to religious exercise can be limited "if others are harmed," and failing to provide adequate medical care can cause serious, life-threatening harm to the child, then the state intervening is justified in this case.

I didn't say "if others might be harmed", but only if they are actually harmed. There's a world of difference.

The fact is, faith healing is not classified - to my knowledge - by any state or federal law to be criminal, or abuse, or neglect. Further, many states have laws that protect parents from criminal prosecution even if their attempted faith healing fails. Your O.P. is about charges brought against parents where the faith healing failed, and the child was harmed, not against the practice of faith healing itself.

Your O.P. did nothing to substantiate "faith healing" as either abuse or neglect.

[Second as Farce]

That's the basis of a free nation where individual liberties are guaranteed. Otherwise, you get smiley-face, nanny fascism.

Funny, I'd say the creation of an ultra-nationalist cult of the state and the suppression of political dissent is what creates fascism, but that's just me (and, you know, the actual definition of fascism). Calling something "fascism" doesn't make it so and not everything you disagree with is fascist.

I didn't say "if others might be harmed", but only if they are actually harmed. There's a world of difference.

Not every drunk driver kills or injures someone else- driving drunk does not guarantee that someone will be harmed, it only creates the serious possibility that someone might be harmed. Should driving under the influence be illegal?

[RationalThought]

They were charged because the faith healing resulted in the child being harmed, not because they were attempting to faith heal the child - as I have said repeatedly, when a faith healing fails and the child actually comes to harm, then the parents and/or faith healer should be charged with the appropriate crime..

The act of being denied modern medical treatment in favor of faith healing, and being harmed by it is a direct result of faith healing being applied before receiving modern medical treatment in the first place. I’m not following your circular reasoning.

IOW, faith healing itself has not been determined to be abuse or neglect, just as standard medical care has not been determined to be abuse or neglect; however, those who attempt to apply faith healing, or attempt to apply standard medical care, can be prosecuted for abuse or neglect or malpractice if their attempt results in a harmed patient.

If nothing else this case set’s precedence for future cases. Currently it’s relative to where you live, and I can only speculate how many cases( perhaps people dying) like this it would take before new laws were passed.

You are mistaking the finding to be about the practice of faith healing, and not about the result. If it was about the practice, then faith healing would be illegal.

Results require proof; the only results for faith healing lie in what it doesn’t do: either someone dies, or goes to modern medical facilities, where creditable data is recorded. Any positive effects can be chalked up to collusion or conjecture.

Faith healing practices have no substantial evidence to support it, so one can only infer based on the outcomes of creditable information that is available, that the practice itself is abuse.

When I say “equate” I mean you must factor in that the child also has individual rights, it’s not simply a matter of state vs parents. If a child is seriously ill it’s not a matter of opinion at this point. Science is relevant because it has objective data to support it. As per my other case, if a child has an appendicitis it’s for his well-being that he sees a trained medical doctor, not a faith healer.

[Meleagar]

The act of being denied modern medical treatment in favor of faith healing, and being harmed by it is a direct result of faith healing being applied before receiving modern medical treatment in the first place. I’m not following your circular reasoning.

That's because I'm not the one employing circular reasoning; you are. Just because the court found the parents guilty of neglect, doesn't mean they found the practice of faith healing an inherently neglectful, or abusive, practice. A doctor practicing medicine can be convicted of malpractice; that doesn't mean the practice of medicine itself is neglect or abuse.

If nothing else this case set’s precedence for future cases. Currently it’s relative to where you live, and I can only speculate how many cases( perhaps people dying) like this it would take before new laws were passed.

Actually, in this case, a law wasn't passed, but rather the exemptions that existed at the state level that would have prevented prosecution were removed years earlier. Also please note; the state doesn't have a law that outlaws faith healing, or the attempt thereof; it can only prosecute if the attempt fails and harm comes to the child.

Any positive effects can be chalked up to collusion or conjecture.

This demonstrates your a priori bias, and is one of the reasons that religious freedoms must be preserved and protected, even though it might result in a few deaths.

Faith healing practices have no substantial evidence to support it, so one can only infer based on the outcomes of creditable information that is available, that the practice itself is abuse.

I guess that depends on what you call "substantial" and "creditable". I am not obligated to refer to only those sources that you find to be "substantial" and "creditable".

When I say “equate” I mean you must factor in that the child also has individual rights, it’s not simply a matter of state vs parents. If a child is seriously ill it’s not a matter of opinion at this point. Science is relevant because it has objective data to support it. As per my other case, if a child has an appendicitis it’s for his well-being that he sees a trained medical doctor, not a faith healer.

That science may have "objective data" (I'm not agreeing, just hypothesizing) is irrelevant, because I am not ordered by law to live my life and conform the expression of my religious freedoms to that which the current consensus of science can confirm, nor are my rights dependent upon that which can be empirically demonstrated. Science does not regulate how far my rights extend; logic based on fundamental, axiomatic principles does.

That we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights is itself a proposition that cannot be materially, objectively, or scientifically verified; therefore, if we are committed to act in accordance only with those concepts that are verifiable by science, then the very notion of individual, unalienable rights disappears, as does the idea that logic should be utilized to discern any of these questions.

I am not legally, morally, or ethically bound to acquiesce to current scientific consensus, because science cannot provide an "ought"; it can only describe what "is".

[Meleagar]

Calling something "fascism" doesn't make it so and not everything you disagree with is fascist.

The "actual" definition of fascism is a topic that is the subject of many and varied tomes that have examined the issue from many different perspectives. That would be a debate for another thread.

Not every drunk driver kills or injures someone else- driving drunk does not guarantee that someone will be harmed, it only creates the serious possibility that someone might be harmed. Should driving under the influence be illegal?

I don't know where the constitution has protected my right to drive a car, so I don't have a problem with laws that restrict the operations of such vehicles to those who don't have their motor skills and judgement impaired by various substances. I do, however, object to the criminalization of those substances.