2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

Let's really focus on the issue here: Should conduct toward a child that would otherwise be considered criminal abuse or neglect be expressly allowed by the state because the parents believe it is required by their religion?

Faith healing is the hard question here, because everyone assumes that the parents are acting in good faith and trying to care for their child in the way they believe is right. But, you have to be consistent across a wide variety of situations and draw the logical conclusions of the laws you advocate.

Assume for a moment that parents of different religions take actions, on the basis of their truly held beliefs:

1. They circumcise their 12 year old daugther, having her labia and clitoris removed in a procedure without anesthetic.

2. They withhold all food and drink from their five year old son for weeks.

3. They beat their children with weighted whips, to the point where they are permanently scarred.

4. They have their early teenage child sexually "initiated" by a relative.

5. They intentionally and ritually sacrifice the life of their child in order to save his or her soul.

Logically, none of these circumstances are ANY different from the faith healing question. We may question the motives and sincerity of the parents in some of the situations more than others, but should the courts be in the business of determining the legitimacy of someone's faith?

A fundamental precept of the separation of church and state is that the state should not be in the business of determining which religious belief is right and which is wrong. What often gets lost is that this is more for the protection of the church than the protection of the state. Does any religion really want the courts to examine the validity and legitimacy of its deeply held tenets?

People of faith cannot have it both ways. If they want the state to stay out of their personal religious decisions and observations, they they MUST be subject to the same standards of conduct regarding the protection of children.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context