Why is religion an excuse?

[sadhatter]

So i have been wondering this for a long time, and wanted to see if anyone could shed some light on the issue.

Why is it , that if religion is used as the reason for a harmful act, the act itself is seen as protected? I will give some examples to clarify.

Let's say i dislike my child. I think he or she is a little jerk. Now i don't abuse the child physically, or even mentally. But what i do is refuse to get it medical care because i dislike it. I would have my child taken away plain and simple.

Now let's flip this over, i don't give my child medical treatment because i believe a religion tells me no to. This suddenly goes from a terrible thing to do to your child to something that should not be intruded upon due to religious freedom.

But, to the child, what is the difference? In either situation the child is not receiving medical treatment they should be.

How on earth can we say that it is okay for one person to deny treatment, but not for another? Why is something that is a voluntary choice for someone to believe a get out of jail free card for committing acts that we would consider crimes by other members of the population?

In all honesty i would like to be able to make a , " how far is this going to go?" point, but i honestly can't see how much farther it can go after denying children access to doctors.

So in short, why is it that religion if used as a reason for many things ( not taking children to doctors, having hateful attitudes toward gays, taking money for no service rendered.) suddenly makes those things okay in the eyes of many people, when those same people would **** a brick if someone did the same things simply because they wanted to.

 

[jimtron]

Now let's flip this over, i don't give my child medical treatment because i believe a religion tells me no to. This suddenly goes from a terrible thing to do to your child to something that should not be intruded upon due to religious freedom.

I don't think there are too many people who share this view. Of course this does happen--there was at least one case discussed here recently--but most mainstream religious followers would not defend this as religious freedom, AFAIK.

So in short, why is it that religion if used as a reason for many things ( not taking children to doctors, having hateful attitudes toward gays, taking money for no service rendered.) suddenly makes those things okay in the eyes of many people, when those same people would **** a brick if someone did the same things simply because they wanted to.

It makes it OK because (in their view) they're following god's wishes. If you believe that god is good and all powerful and will determine whether you go to heaven or hell, and god wants you to hate gays, you hate gays. It's wrong, but perfectly logical (if you buy into the god part).

 

[GrandMasterFox]

There's too much of a broad definition in what you're talking about.

First, it depends on the act. Second, it depends on the location as certain court systems tend to look at these things differently.

I think most cases would approve of sentencing parents who prevented medical care for their children (again, geography may say otherwise).

However, yes, when it comes to certain things such home schooling children and preventing them from learning in school seems to be "okay" even though to me it should be categorized as child abuse.

 

[Beth]

So i have been wondering this for a long time, and wanted to see if anyone could shed some light on the issue.

Why is it , that if religion is used as the reason for a harmful act, the act itself is seen as protected? I will give some examples to clarify.

I don't think this is true. As a counterexample, consider religious terrorists. They are not excused in our culture, but will be prosecuted whether they are bombing abortion clinics or mosques.

What is true, and I think perhaps you are referring to, are things like religious exemptions to vaccination requirements. It is true that some behaviors are considered more culturally acceptable if the motivation is religious in nature. Is this what you are referring to?

Let's say i dislike my child. I think he or she is a little jerk. Now i don't abuse the child physically, or even mentally. But what i do is refuse to get it medical care because i dislike it. I would have my child taken away plain and simple.

Not necessarily, it depends on the circumstances. Certainly, if it becomes known that your child is suffering due to a lack of proper medical care, you can lose custody.

Now let's flip this over, i don't give my child medical treatment because i believe a religion tells me no to. This suddenly goes from a terrible thing to do to your child to something that should not be intruded upon due to religious freedom.

Again, if it becomes known that your child is suffering due to a lack of proper medical care, you can lose custody. I don't see the response from our government being much different. As long as your child is healthy, it doesn't matter what medical care you are or are not providing. If the child is ill or hurt and needs attention, you can lose custody if you don't provide proper medical care.

The personal freedom argument doesn't hinge on what your motivation is for the action, but whether it's appropriate for others to intervene in the situation.

But, to the child, what is the difference? In either situation the child is not receiving medical treatment they should be.

To the child, the first situation is likely to be far more damaging than the second. Disliking your child will almost certainly negatively affect them in ways that a loving parent who simply doesn't believe in modern medical treatment doesn't. Unless the child has some sort of condition that requires treatment, in which case failure to provide treatment can lead to loss of custody.

How on earth can we say that it is okay for one person to deny treatment, but not for another? Why is something that is a voluntary choice for someone to believe a get out of jail free card for committing acts that we would consider crimes by other members of the population?

Are you sure this is the case? My current understanding is that medical neglect is a crime regardless of the motivation. The only cases I've heard about in the past decade all had to do with parents being prosecuted, not being absolved of the crime by reason of religion.

I think most cases would approve of sentencing parents who prevented medical care for their children (again, geography may say otherwise).

However, yes, when it comes to certain things such home schooling children and preventing them from learning in school seems to be "okay" even though to me it should be categorized as child abuse.

Why should home schooling be considered abuse? And I'm afraid that if preventing children from learning in school was a crime, we have to lock up half or more of our school children and a fair portion of teachers and administrators.

 

[Cactus]

(On a side, I really hate it when people put anything like Home Schooling and Child Abuse together. Yeah in some cases it can be very bad, but what everyone else considers child abuse is far far far worse)

I have to disagree with your idea, on the grounds that you seem to be confusing the different kinds of acts done for 'religious reasons'

Going by typical western society, any sort of actual crime done for religious reasons will be treated the same as a crime done for any other reason, a terrorist is a terrorist. It's the intent to cause harm that's more important, not the why you want to cause harm (except in the rare case of insanity).

On the other hand, things like refusing medical care for children or hating minority groups are things which many find acceptable for religious reasons, but they are legal. Freedom of Speech protects hate speech and (I don't know what to call it but the rights of parents) protect choosing everything for their kids.

But still, if the hate becomes violent, it becomes a crime and is treated as such, also if the child is found to be in serious danger/dies from the choice it is also a crime.

I don't know how well I've worded this (It's 5:30am) but I'm principally trying to get across the idea that religious motivation doesn't excuse crime and anything else doesn't need an excuse in the first place.

Of course if we are going down the route of societies with less clear gaps between church and state then things just get complicated.

 

[SezMe]

Are you sure this is the case? My current understanding is that medical neglect is a crime regardless of the motivation.

It's not that simple. Here's a paper on the subject:

Stimulated by publicity over lawsuits involving parents of children who had died from deprivation of medical care, this article is a survey of the beliefs of religious groups that refuse medical care on theological grounds and the legal principles designed to protect children from such abuse. Particular attention is given to whether or not child-neglect laws that carve out exceptions for spiritual healing groups are constitutional under the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Very recent cases, including some still in progress, are used for illustration.

The author wouldn't be talking about "exceptions for spiritual healing groups" if there were none.

Note: I have not read the whole paper.

 

[Fiona]

So i have been wondering this for a long time, and wanted to see if anyone could shed some light on the issue.

Why is it , that if religion is used as the reason for a harmful act, the act itself is seen as protected? I will give some examples to clarify.

Let's say i dislike my child. I think he or she is a little jerk. Now i don't abuse the child physically, or even mentally. But what i do is refuse to get it medical care because i dislike it. I would have my child taken away plain and simple.

Now let's flip this over, i don't give my child medical treatment because i believe a religion tells me no to. This suddenly goes from a terrible thing to do to your child to something that should not be intruded upon due to religious freedom.

But, to the child, what is the difference? In either situation the child is not receiving medical treatment they should be.

How on earth can we say that it is okay for one person to deny treatment, but not for another? Why is something that is a voluntary choice for someone to believe a get out of jail free card for committing acts that we would consider crimes by other members of the population?

In all honesty i would like to be able to make a , " how far is this going to go?" point, but i honestly can't see how much farther it can go after denying children access to doctors.

So in short, why is it that religion if used as a reason for many things ( not taking children to doctors, having hateful attitudes toward gays, taking money for no service rendered.) suddenly makes those things okay in the eyes of many people, when those same people would **** a brick if someone did the same things simply because they wanted to.

Extreme cases such as a refusal to get appropriate medical care are not privileged in this country. Can't speak for anywhere else

But if I correctly understand the thrust of your question, the simple answer is blackmail. Religious people are prepared to kill you if they get pissed off enough. That is the reason folk tip toe around them, however that is dressed up.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Why should home schooling be considered abuse? And I'm afraid that if preventing children from learning in school was a crime, we have to lock up half or more of our school children and a fair portion of teachers and administrators.

If I decide not to take my kid to a doctor because I myself am a doctor and I can treat him, you'd say that's perfectly fine.

But if I am not a doctor and I give it alternative crap or just pray then you would constitute this as child abuse?

Now the question comes, how can we tell them apart?
Where do you draw the line and say this is okay or that is not okay?

You go by the treatment or you go having a licensed proffessional. Either way, if a child goes to learn in the house of a certified teacher that follows the state curiculam, that's fine by me.

But if a child is being held away from the rest of the world, being fed lies regarding science, history and whatever and is brainwashed and indoctrinated to a position where he becomes completely dependant on his household or local community, then it is a basic form of child abuse.

Making sure that the child goes through state mandatory education program (however it is implemented) is the only way to prevent that from happenning. Same way that forcing food companies to pass state standards in order to obtain a license to serve or sell their food.

 

[Beth]

If I decide not to take my kid to a doctor because I myself am a doctor and I can treat him, you'd say that's perfectly fine.

But if I am not a doctor and I give it alternative crap or just pray then you would constitute this as child abuse?

The use of prayer or alternative medicine is not, in and of itself, considered child abuse. The denial of appropriate treatment when necessary for the health of the child is.

Now the question comes, how can we tell them apart?
Where do you draw the line and say this is okay or that is not okay?

I agree, it's a difficult fuzzy area. But that doesn't mean that declaring one approach as abusive is appropriate either. Currently, our approach is that if the child is suffering serious harm or likely to die as a result of lack of treatment, that is considered a form of abuse. Do you have an issue with that or would you claim that failure to get yearly physicals is a form of child abuse?

You go by the treatment or you go having a licensed proffessional. Either way, if a child goes to learn in the house of a certified teacher that follows the state curiculam, that's fine by me.

But if a child is being held away from the rest of the world, being fed lies regarding science, history and whatever and is brainwashed and indoctrinated to a position where he becomes completely dependant on his household or local community, then it is a basic form of child abuse.

Although there are a few home schools that might be accurately described this way, the vast majority are not. In general, homeschooling produces adults that are better educated and better able to participate in society as functioning adults than traditional schools do. I suggest you learn the facts about homeschooling before condemning it based on inaccurate stereotypes.

Making sure that the child goes through state mandatory education program (however it is implemented) is the only way to prevent that from happenning. Same way that forcing food companies to pass state standards in order to obtain a license to serve or sell their food.

Would you make gardening illegal because you cannot ensure that the food they produce passes state standards?

 

[MG1962]

So in short, why is it that religion if used as a reason for many things ( not taking children to doctors, having hateful attitudes toward gays, taking money for no service rendered.) suddenly makes those things okay in the eyes of many people, when those same people would **** a brick if someone did the same things simply because they wanted to.

Easy fix - dont prosecute the parents, go after the minister of the Church that advised them. Charge him/her with manslaughter. You probably wouldn't win the case, but the ensuring publicity is going to dent the organisation considerably. And it will be fun to watch the persons convictions tested in a public forum