Sunday, November 15, 2009 | Reason : Religion as Child Abuse | print version

Print | Comments |

When a child dies, faith is no defense

by Jonathan Turley, Washington Post

Thanks to Wesley for the link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111302220.html

"Suffer little children to come to me." So begins one of the most cited passages in the Bible. Yet, in cases involving the deaths of children in faith-healing families, the second half of Jesus's admonition from Luke 18:16 is at the heart of legal controversy: ". . . and forbid them not."

In the past 25 years, hundreds of children are believed to have died in the United States after faith-healing parents forbade medical attention to end their sickness or protect their lives. When minors die from a lack of parental care, it is usually a matter of criminal neglect and is often tried as murder. However, when parents say the neglect was an article of faith, courts routinely hand down lighter sentences. Faithful neglect has not been used as a criminal defense, but the claim is surprisingly effective in achieving more lenient sentencing, in which judges appear to render less unto Caesar and more unto God.

This disparate treatment was evident last month in Wisconsin, a state with an exemption for faith-based neglect under its child abuse laws. Leilani and Dale Neumann were sentenced for allowing their 11-year-old daughter, Madeline Kara Neumann, to die in 2008 from an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes. The Neumanns are affiliated with a faith-healing church called Unleavened Bread Ministries and continued to pray with other members while Madeline died. They could have received 25 years in prison. Instead, the court emphasized their religious rationale and gave them each six months in jail (to be served one month a year) and 10 years' probation.
...
Continue reading
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111302220.html

Posted: Sunday, November 15, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 75 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #431958 by Stafford Gordon on November 15, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Vile selfish cruelty to children; totally against nature.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

2. Comment #431959 by Janus on November 15, 2009 at 8:31 pm

A question for my fellow atheists:

Assuming the religious parents who let their children die sincerely believed that prayer would heal them, what is it they did, exactly, that is morally wrong?

Other Comments by Janus

3. Comment #431960 by JSB2024 on November 15, 2009 at 8:31 pm

Maybe when that Al Qaeda commander who is going to be tried in New York City for masterminding 9/11 arrives, he should state his actions were "faith-based" and ask for a lighter sentence.

Other Comments by JSB2024

4. Comment #431961 by d1az on November 15, 2009 at 8:31 pm

Irrationality Kills

Other Comments by d1az

5. Comment #431964 by wetbread on November 15, 2009 at 8:34 pm

@Stafford Gordon: I've never liked the "for/against nature" argument, but I'm in full agreement with you on the first part.

Does anyone know of a religion where I'm obliged to take money from people? I'm a little light in the wallet these days and looking for a good get-out-of-jail-free card.

(Sorry, as RD is English, "gaol".)

Other Comments by wetbread

6. Comment #431970 by Rationalist1 on November 15, 2009 at 8:58 pm

I hate to hear of children dying because of the absurd beliefs of their parents but where .does one draw the line. Do we prosecute not only extreme religious beliefs but also people who follow homeopaths, chiropractors, nutritionists, etc.? A good friend of my son had a very bad case of H1N1. I begged his parents to see a doctor, to see if Tamiflu was warranted, but they scorn all forms of medicine (his parents are cranks). He survived but if he hadn't should they have been prosecuted? It's a very difficult question with a whole range of issues to consider.

In my opinion the only solution is that critical thinking and reasoning must be taught. It's the only hope.

Other Comments by Rationalist1

7. Comment #431971 by glenister_m on November 15, 2009 at 9:02 pm

I assume the argument would go "They were doing what they thought was best, and as a result their child died and they have to suffer for that. What the court adds to that is trivial."

As one definition of insanity goes - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If the parents were unrepentant, and would trust in faith healing again, then they should lose custody of any other kids they have as they have just demonstrated they are not of sound mind.

Other Comments by glenister_m

8. Comment #431972 by Mr DArcy on November 15, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Maybe these kids needed exorcising. Send for the Vatican hit squad of witch doctors.

The article did point out that those parents without a faith excuse for inaction got treated harsher by the courts. Whatever the rights and wrongs of sentencing those parents' behaviour was awful too.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

9. Comment #431973 by MondSemmel on November 15, 2009 at 9:09 pm

@Janus (#431959)

The morally wrong act of the parents was neglecting their parenting duties to their children. In general, the most selfish thing a person can do in life is get children; and with this act of selfishness comes a huge chunk of responsibilities. Obviously, we cannot expect an 11 year old child to get medical treatment independently - the health of the child is part of the parents' responsibility. Their morally wrong (i.e. what I would call evil - I'd tend to say that people cannot be described as evil, although actions certainly can) acts were: Not getting professional help (from doctors practicing evidence-based, i.e. effective, medicine), not using rational thinking (i.e. try praying if you must, but if the child's condition gets WORSE, not better, surely there's a better conclusion than "We need to pray more!"?), giving more weight to authority (their church/religion) than the good of their child, etc.
Of course, in some ways one can always argue that technically, the criminally negligent parents were probably already brought up in a similar religion and never really allowed to develop their cognitive faculties, so really, the grandparents are at fault, or their parents, or... - but then, where does that end? Thinking like that leads us to supid notions like original sin. Much easier to say that they, themselves, share a substantial part of the blame - although others, like the church community, acted criminally negligent, as well, and so shouldn't be able to get away without punishment...

Other Comments by MondSemmel

10. Comment #431974 by Oberon on November 15, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Janus wrote:

Assuming the religious parents who let their children die sincerely believed that prayer would heal them, what is it they did, exactly, that is morally wrong?

I don't know if it's really a question of morals. Were no longer in the dark ages. People these days are expected to have knowledge of the effectiveness of modern medicine (and relative inefficacy of faith in treating medical problems) and seek medical attention for all serious problems.

This sort of ignorance shouldn't be tolerated, otherwise it will continue to persist in some communities.

Other Comments by Oberon

11. Comment #431975 by dloubet on November 15, 2009 at 9:10 pm

To answer Janus's question, they used their child as a pawn in their game of belief.

Other Comments by dloubet

12. Comment #431976 by j.mills on November 15, 2009 at 9:12 pm

Janus - a case could be made that not trying to find out what is demonstrably the most effective remedy for your sick child is a wilful neglect for which the parent is morally culpable. But even if one took the view (as the Neumann's judge seems to have done) that the parents were simply 'ignorant' (rather than immoral) as a consequence of their religious blinkers - still, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. The trial's outcome should recognise where theist parents aren't fit to supervise their children (Mrs Neumann still thinks she just didn't 'pray hard enough' - like there's a threshold you have to cross to get god's attention!), and arguably the sentence should be a signal to society and other such parents of the severity of the crime.

Other Comments by j.mills

13. Comment #431985 by JonathanWest on November 15, 2009 at 9:34 pm

Janus

Assuming the religious parents who let their children die sincerely believed that prayer would heal them, what is it they did, exactly, that is morally wrong??

Let's take a slightly different case as an example. We know that drinking a lot slows your reactions considerably. If you try to drive a car when under the influence of alcohol, you are a danger to yourself and to others. Driving a car while under the influence is therefore generally regarded as a wrong and even immoral act, and most countries have passed laws accordingly.

There has been a great deal of publicity in campaigns against drink-driving, so no driver can reasonably be unaware of the issue.

But if somebody, despite all this knowledge, genuinely believes that his reactions are not impaired if he drives while drunk, has he committed a wrong act when as a result he knocks over and kills a teenage girl? I think that most people would say "yes". The law also says yes.

The same principle applies to medical care. If somebody refuses medical care for their child in a genuine but unreasonably-held belief that faith-healing will be effective, then as far as I'm concerned, they are committing a wrong act in precisely the same way.

Other Comments by JonathanWest

14. Comment #431987 by d1az on November 15, 2009 at 9:39 pm

2. Comment #431959 by Janus

Nothing wrong. But still they should be responsabilized for what happend . Now, if the parents keep their faith after their kid's death, then... there's no excuse. They are morally perverse...

Other Comments by d1az

15. Comment #431988 by golemXIV on November 15, 2009 at 9:44 pm

It is funny that nobody caught the expression "religious rationale". Is there really such a thing?
Should not it be religious Irrationale?

Other Comments by golemXIV

16. Comment #431989 by root2squared on November 15, 2009 at 9:44 pm

During their sentencing, Marathon County Circuit Court Judge Vincent Howard said the Neumanns are "very good people raising their family who made a bad decision, a reckless decision." He then gently encouraged them to remember that "God probably works through other people, some of them doctors."

Even the judge is a moron.

Other Comments by root2squared

17. Comment #431992 by Jos Gibbons on November 15, 2009 at 9:59 pm

Comment #431959 by Janus

I'm with JonathanWest on this one. I have long held that believing things for which there is insufficient evidence is, in fact, immoral, partly because the consequences of doing so include precisely those consequences which get so many decisions deemed immoral. If we are to avoid making certain mistakes, we will need to have sensible beliefs from the beginning (with continual revisions, of course); it is precisely because, as you have suggested, that which others can see as immoral gain pretext in the light of bad beliefs that one is in fact resigning responsibilities recklessly when adopting them. For these and several other reasons, I few rationalism and morality as two sides of the same coin.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

18. Comment #431996 by rod-the-farmer on November 15, 2009 at 10:24 pm

I think the entire prayer group who sat around and watched the child die, should have been charged, and they should have received the same sentence. They were each directly party to the parents' abandonment of their responsibility towards their child.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

19. Comment #431999 by debridement on November 15, 2009 at 10:30 pm

The discussion of whether the parents are morally culpable seems somewhat irrelevant. Morality is subjective and so should only be used in determining the intent of the guilty party (ex: first degree murder vs manslaughter).

Of course this affects the sentence, but shouldn't play a role in determining guilt. The courts should judge the situation mostly on the interpretation of laws, not on morality.

They are legally culpable. It's shameful that these religious parents, with their destructive beliefs, are let off so easy. It is only somewhat of an exaggeration to say the legal system is condoning this behavior.

Other Comments by debridement

20. Comment #432004 by Nunbeliever on November 15, 2009 at 10:47 pm

He then gently encouraged them to remember that "God probably works through other people, some of them doctors.

I really gotta vomit right now!! What the judge actually said is "well folks, the outcome this time was not the best possible. But don't worry. The most important thing is that you still have faith. Better luck next time..."

Don't mind the fact that these lunatics killed their child. Back in the church their congregation will probably feel sorry for the parents and blame this horrible event on the devil. They will probably be given a hero's reception for being true believers. Nevermind a dead child now and then.

Can someone please tell me what the heck is happening there over seas? In my ears this sounds so unbelievably crazy? Have you lost your mind over there? I try to repeat the mantra "all americans are not the same, all americans are not the samt" as often as I can. But just the fact that something like this CAN happen is beyond my understanding. Should we start regarding USA as a third world country? These kind of things surely pave the way...

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

21. Comment #432005 by Spinoza on November 15, 2009 at 10:47 pm

William Cliffordites Unite.

Other Comments by Spinoza

22. Comment #432006 by megacephalanthropus on November 15, 2009 at 10:57 pm

"Assuming the religious parents who let their children die sincerely believed that prayer would heal them, what is it they did, exactly, that is morally wrong?"
THEY LET THE CHILD DIE!!!

Other Comments by megacephalanthropus

23. Comment #432009 by Ian Couchman on November 15, 2009 at 11:06 pm

If I see a child step off the pavement into the path of oncoming traffic and I have a reasonable opportunity to protect that child by intervening, I don't stand there praying about it. I use my rational mental faculties and take proactive measures. Likewise with this case - this child through no fault of it's own was standing in the direct path of a harmful medical condition, one which society's powers of rational thought has figured out how to fix. To stand there and pray instead while the child dies is not only barbaric - it is thoroughly criminal by any rightminded society's standards.

Other Comments by Ian Couchman

24. Comment #432010 by aqi on November 15, 2009 at 11:07 pm

Hell yes, they're doing something morally wrong. The law forbids parents from withholding vital medical care to children under their guardianship.

To do so is both morally & legally heinous, and not knowing the law or following it is NO defense.

I'm sick of the faithful placing theocracy before the human rights that our western democratic countries mandate. I can't think of a stance LESS patriotic.

Who's with me?

Other Comments by aqi

25. Comment #432014 by colluvial on November 15, 2009 at 11:17 pm

Janus:

What was morally wrong was putting their beliefs before the health of their child. Once it was evident that the child was not getting better with prayer, they should have shown enough love and concern to let go of their dogmatic beliefs and get her to a hospital.

Other Comments by colluvial

26. Comment #432021 by ANTIcarrot on November 15, 2009 at 11:32 pm

Unfortunately this is the way the law is written. Neglect is a crime that fundimentally involves *ignoring* children. If a parent makes an active decision to persue path X, then technically they are not *legally* guilty of neglect - in most juristictions.

Most people dislike the idea of the state telling parents how to do their job, so it is difficult to write legislation that proscribes which parental decisions are legal. In this way all 'moderate' parents serve to make possible the ctivities of a few extremeists.

In any case I believe a word more appropiet would be 'insanity'.

Other Comments by ANTIcarrot

27. Comment #432027 by Border Collie on November 15, 2009 at 11:57 pm

These people DO NOT love their children. They own and control their children, something like livestock, to suit their own bullshit fantasies. I'm also curious about how many of these people have life insurance on their children and if they're able to collect on the policies.

#431996 ... Hear, hear, Rod! That would put a kink in their little self-justifying wanker society.

Other Comments by Border Collie

28. Comment #432034 by root2squared on November 16, 2009 at 12:32 am

27. Comment #432027 by Border Collie

These people DO NOT love their children.

Maybe this is true. Maybe not. At the least it is certain they do not love their children as much as they love god.

Other Comments by root2squared

29. Comment #432037 by j.mills on November 16, 2009 at 12:44 am

...but in their world, they're supposed to love god more than anything else - that's the foundation of the Abrahamic religions. They have (taking the most charitable view) loyally pursued their faith; but that should in no way exempt them from the worldly consequences of their actions. They could be martyrs in prison, if that's their thing, and regard that as 'part of god's plan' too.

Other Comments by j.mills

30. Comment #432038 by d1az on November 16, 2009 at 12:52 am

This is Abraam and Isaac all over again.

Other Comments by d1az

31. Comment #432039 by A on November 16, 2009 at 12:56 am

Fucking morons, fucking moronic judge.

This is tacit encouragement for the section of society that still believes their child's (and perhaps societal health) is best served with incantation and telepathic communion with an unseen beast.

Fuck these idiot bastards.

I can happily ignore the comic and dishonest and superbly insane epistemology of any group, but when I hear of another small child being put into the ground to entertain their shit for brains parent's superstitions it angers me.

Fuck religion, fuck it.

Other Comments by A

32. Comment #432040 by Philster61 on November 16, 2009 at 1:00 am

I blame the courts for this. If the judges are swayed by the religious convictions of the parents and their not likely to hand out the punishment for the parents sheer stupidity? then this will only encourage other parents to keep believing that its alright to let the child suffer their religion.

This shows the lack of responsibility of the judges. It shows their failure to act on behalf of the children who are at risk of these irresponsible parents. While the best intentions of the parents may be considered,its their failure to make the right decision that needs to be punished. Especially when a life saving act is a straight forward simple medical treatment.

I blame the failure of the legal system and those who implement it.

Other Comments by Philster61

33. Comment #432041 by Koreman on November 16, 2009 at 1:09 am

The wonderful magical US Law.

Two people both enjoying eachother where one is just under 18 and the other above? First, have them both exposed in the media and known to the world, do not forget to include every possible detail. Then send one to jail forever or close. Send the other into therapy. Why? In order to protect young people. You can't do enough to protect them from harm. Sexuality is very harmful. Allegedly.

However.

Suffering a young child to a long miserable painful death because of a fairytale for grown ups in the bronze age about zombies and what we would call now a virtual reality computer game including an end boss who wants to be sung upon and tickled by you so you can pass and spawn in a next level? Holy crap! Congratulations, players! And oh, you should have gone to the doctor. Bye.

Is it realy 2009?

Other Comments by Koreman

34. Comment #432044 by Fuller on November 16, 2009 at 1:44 am

Another perfect example for responding to the 'whats the harm?' argument in defense of faith.

Other Comments by Fuller

35. Comment #432045 by debaser71 on November 16, 2009 at 1:56 am

1) ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law
2) i do not favor putting people in jail unless they are violent criminals

Other Comments by debaser71

36. Comment #432047 by root2squared on November 16, 2009 at 2:07 am

It's kind of hypocritical for a government that has "In god we trust" on its currency to punish its people for actually trusting god.

Other Comments by root2squared

37. Comment #432050 by DocWebster on November 16, 2009 at 2:23 am

Every time I read about this fight between faith healing and real medicine I am taken back to my own mother becoming a Jehovah's Witless and forbidding me a mark a box approving blood transfusions if the parents could be present in an emergency. I am not by any means being hyperbolic to say that if our home had been closer to town where the arguments could have been heard I might well have gone to foster care for the sheer ugliness the cops would have encountered. All of these years later I can talk with my mom but I really just don't care about her because I know that when it comes right down to it, she loves a delusion more than me and that is the saddest part about all of these cases.

Other Comments by DocWebster

38. Comment #432051 by Mike D on November 16, 2009 at 2:24 am

The right wing Christian conservatives go ape-s*@t when the ACLU takes legal action against sanctimonious judges who place the 10 Commandments in their courtrooms. This is a perfect example why religion must be absolutely separate from state. Sadly, each State's laws vary as to how they prosecute faith-based crimes. The individuals least able to defend themselves from this corrupt, perverse disease known as religion are the casualties. Same as it ever was. The RESPONSIBLE voters of Wisconsin should be OUTRAGED and have a duty to throw these bastards out of office.

Other Comments by Mike D

39. Comment #432054 by InYourFaceNewYorker on November 16, 2009 at 3:39 am

Parents who allow their kids to die of medical neglect get a slap on the wrist, all because it was in the name of religion. Yet, if a kid has gay parents, some child protective services will take them away. Or if the parents of transgender children allow the kid to live in their identified gender (with a changed name, pronouns, etc., no surgery or hormones until at least puberty age), the kid gets taken away. The standards in all these cases come from religion...

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

40. Comment #432058 by SyDaemon on November 16, 2009 at 5:10 am

Selfishly, I don't see this as a problem at all. As indicated in the article about the "Peculiar People" whose "numbers have thinned considerably because of their views" on the matter, so will such views eventually die out because the parents will be left with no children to pass them on.

The issue will solve itself in due time. Of course, the real question here is, what about the rights of that child?

One thing though, if anything, these people aren't hypocritical about their beliefs. They follow them through and through. We've often cited how many religious individuals may be viewed as hypocritical because they still turn to science when there's a medical emergency. Not these people, they're true to their word, you have to give them credit for that.

Other Comments by SyDaemon

41. Comment #432064 by Rodger T on November 16, 2009 at 5:58 am

Yet their "word" kills children.

I`m afraid their credit rating is minus zero.

Other Comments by Rodger T

42. Comment #432073 by Roland_F on November 16, 2009 at 7:00 am

Comment #431959 by Janus : Assuming the religious parents who let their children die sincerely believed that prayer would heal them, what is it they did, exactly, that is morally wrong£

Morality is not just what ever any lunatic might dream up to be correct, like this comic series character Linus sitting in a pumpkin field and waiting for the big pumpkin god to show up if you just pray and belief hard enough.
Moral is the overall value system of the society and there it is not suitable to let you child die in pain while ‘sincerely praying’ to the big pumpkin, Odin or YHWH, rather than getting professional medical help.
In the legal system therefore ignorance is not protecting from punishment and in a proper jurisdictional system the parents would go to jail for negligence as would the faithful congregation sitting beside and praying with them and encourage and reinforce them in their delusion to pray instead calling for professional medical help.

So ‘sincerely belief’ is not equal morality. Just assume Hitler who was writing decades before he was elected with the support from the two Christians parties in Germany, that executing the complete genocide of all Jews is fulfilling gods will. As this theme is like the tread written all over ‘Mein Kampf’ maybe Hitler sincerely believed he really fulfilled gods will with the Holocaust, so should this then be considered moral £
Maybe for a Christian who believes in John’s Gospel teaching it is moral, where just the sincere belief in Jesus as savior is the only important deed to be saved (even just in the last minute before death) and to gain entry in the kingdom of God.

Other Comments by Roland_F

43. Comment #432077 by Raiko on November 16, 2009 at 7:15 am

I know this is off-topic, but I am in Turkey right now, viewing this website (while I cannot use youtube). Was the ban removed?

Other Comments by Raiko

44. Comment #432078 by Roy_H on November 16, 2009 at 7:36 am

Something I will never forget, many years ago it was on the TV news about a child that died in hospital all because the parents would not sign the consent form so the poor kid could have a blood transfusion. (The oh so loving parents were Jehovah's Witnesses )I also remember how disgusted my family all were, my mother even shedding a few tears over the incident. The following Saturday, there was a knock on our front door, my mother answered it. Yes, you guessed it, it was a couple of glassy-eyed J.W.'s, My mother, who normally had such a gentle nature gave them such an almightly bollocking that it even scared me, let alone those damn creeps. Oh and by the way, they never ever bothered us again.

Other Comments by Roy_H

45. Comment #432092 by Roland_F on November 16, 2009 at 9:01 am

#432077 by Raiko : I am in Turkey right now, viewing this website (while I cannot use youtube). Was the ban removed£

last week we had a Turkish poster here, who said the ban is still on, but several internet cafes are smart enough to bypass the government enforced blocks.

Other Comments by Roland_F

46. Comment #432094 by Paul42 on November 16, 2009 at 9:02 am

So, let me get this straight.

In the same country, an individual can get years in jail for possession of a tiny amount of a plant deemed illegal.

But if a parent sits by and prays instead of taking a child to a medical professional and the child dies, the legal system has sympathy for their "faith" and quite literally hands the parent a "get out of jail free card".

Where's the condemnation of this from religious moderates and ordinary churchgoers? why aren't religious "leaders" filling newspaper columns with explanations of why this practice is wrong, wrong wrong? Are they too busy bawling about billboards and adverts on buses?

The "I'm an atheist but" heads, the accommodationists and the softly softly brigade need to be constantly reminded of these stories.

Love.

Other Comments by Paul42

47. Comment #432108 by Drosera on November 16, 2009 at 10:19 am

d1az,

This is Abraam and Isaac all over again.

d1az is right. Faith healing is a form of sacrifice. You are basically telling your god that it is up to him/her/it to do with your child as he/she/it pleases. If the child dies then that's god's will. So be it. And — to answer Janus's question #431959 — that's why faith healing is morally wrong. If we accept that parents have a moral obligation to take responsibility for the well-being of their children, then by transferring that responsibility to god they violate this obligation.

If religion absolves parents from their responsibility, then we might as well say that the Aztecs were not morally wrong for sacrificing people to the sun god.

Edit:

Defendant: Your honour, I am a neo-Aztec. I just followed the tenets of my religion when I cut the victim's heart out of his chest while he was still alive. I had to.

Judge: That's alright then. Next time use a sharper knife, please. Case dismissed.

Edit 2: I originally wrote 'deferring' where I meant 'transferring'.

Other Comments by Drosera

48. Comment #432113 by Flapjack on November 16, 2009 at 10:41 am

"One of the earliest prosecutions of such a case occurred in England in the 1800s, when the crown charged followers of a sect known only as the Peculiar People, a name derived from a translation of the phrase "chosen people" from the book of Deuteronomy. They were accused of killing numerous children as a result of faith-healing practices."
Peculiar people... there's an interesting use of understatement.
I'd be intrigued to know what percentage of these concerned fundie parents practice the same level of cognative dissonance when it comes to their own life-threatening medical problems.

Other Comments by Flapjack

49. Comment #432114 by Colwyn Abernathy on November 16, 2009 at 10:53 am

"Keep yer hands to yerself, Faddah! When Jesus said "Suffer little children to come unto me," THAT'S NOT WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT!"
-George Carlin

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

50. Comment #432132 by hungarianelephant on November 16, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Actually I'd take a different tack from many posters here because I see your point.

What I would do instead is call bullshit on the claim that they sincerely believed. For example: if someone is caught stealing, it would be a defence in the US or England that they honestly believed they were entitled to take the goods. They don't even need to prove this. They just need to say they did - it's then up to the prosecution to prove that they did not honestly hold that belief. So it looks like an easy way out of the prosecution.

But no one runs this defence, ever. Why not? Because no one will believe you. Claiming you hear God's voice is taken as near-conclusive proof of being either insane or a liar. (As Billy Connolly once put it, the mental institution "won't even let you go home for your fucking pyjamas".)Even religious people know, on a basic level, that the claims of theism are false.

Believing that you hear God's voice is not qualitatively different from believing that God responds to your personal prayers. They didn't believe this. Or if they did, they are a danger to themselves and those close to them, and should be kept out of harm's way. Whether that is a judgment of their morals is irrelevant.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last