Faith Healers Given Probation

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

We have previously discussed the death of Kent Schaible, here and here. Kent Schaible, 2, died of bacterial pneumonia because his parents Herbert and Catherine Schaible, a fundamentalist Christian couple, believed in faith healing and declined to get medical attention for their child in Philadelphia. They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment.

Common Pleas Court Judge Carolyn Engel Temin sentenced them to 10 years of probation.Terms of the probation include the requirement that the couple seek routine and emergency medical care for their seven other children, ranging in ages from 1 to 15.

What is best for the seven remaining children? Not an easy question to answer. If the parents do not comply with the above requirement, more lives could be lost. Any deterrence on other parents in a similar situation is nonexistent, putting other children at risk. If the parents go to jail, it is unlikely that the children would remain together, especially in the foster care system.

Maintaining the current family structure is far from ideal. Being raised in a fundamentalist Christian household, these children will be indoctrinated in delusional insanity. My heart goes out to them. The parents have shown their delusional insanity with their belief in an “invisible magic being” that can cure disease. It is probably true, as with many of these cases, that this belief was only reinforced with the death of Kent.

H/T: The Washington Times.

59 thoughts on “Faith Healers Given Probation

  1. W=c,

    No, I haven’t.

    And it’s not a word that I’m aware of either. Neither is “subgomency”. They sound a lot like Lewis Carroll nonsense words, like “All mimsy were the borogroves”. If that was the writer’s intent, good job. Nonsense verse is much harder to write than most people would think. To be effective, it must mimic actual language in meter and timbre – more like writing music than a traditional sentence.

  2. “To be effective, it must mimic actual language in meter and timbre – more like writing music than a traditional sentence.”
    ———————–
    well it had me fooled!

    my dear friend who taught me that little phrase will get a good laugh out of this.

    Substitute the word ‘satisfy’, that should do the trick….

    (I’m all em bare assed now….)

  3. WC,
    Be sure to get your tradmark protection on those new words before Sarah Palin gets her hands on them!
    This is one more extreme example of what happens when religion takes over common sense and the rule of law. These parents should be in prison and the rest of their children should be in foster care. The parents killed their child by their negligence and stupidity.
    Blouise,
    I actually agree with you that parents should not leave their children alone with any priest or minister. Even Jesuits. Even though Jesuits have not been cited, to my knowledge, in light of the pervasive abuse, it is better to be safe than sorry.

  4. Bob,

    I am still waiting for mine to come back down…I though about putting a dog on the roof to get it……I was met with great resistance by the owner….

  5. RE: James in LA 1, February 12, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Religion always ends up calling for the death of those with whom you do not agree.

    Because you, me, everyone is capable of service to one another through unconditional love without need of a deity or religion.

    #############################

    I find:
    1. The belief that religion always calls for death of those with one disagrees is a false belief, and, being untrue as fact, is obviously just another religious belief.

    2. As some people have demonstrated being incapable of unconditional love and you claim otherwise, this belief being false, is just another religious belief

    3. I once inquired of a avowedly “anti-religion” group dealing with religious concerns what religion was regarding their concerns, and was informed that such a question was forbidden by the group, thereby satisfying my curiosity as to whether anti-religion is merely another religion.

    I am a religious scientist, and my religion is science, and I seek to avoid harm to everyone with whom I may disagree at parity with anyone (haven’t found anyone yet, other than myself) with whom I agree.

  6. You know the Irony of the issue of Slavery….You don’t work you are not supposed to eat….if you do work you are supposed to pay taxes…if you don’t pay taxes…well, you become a pampered slave….Because you do have a master……

  7. Anonymously Yours 1, February 13, 2011 at 10:01 am

    You know the Irony of the issue of Slavery….You don’t work you are not supposed to eat….if you do work you are supposed to pay taxes…if you don’t pay taxes…well, you become a pampered slave….Because you do have a master……
    ______________________________
    horse-shiite

    those are silly statements. If you are referring to the non-tax status of churches it has more to do with thier non-profit status….not every church is the RCC.

  8. “scientists do lie, cheat, and deceive the public regularly about their discoveries or research and deserve to be viewed with extreme caution”

    Funny, the very same thing can be said about clergy. The difference is that science is set up to expose the frauds, cheats and ignorant were as religion is set up to protect and further them.

  9. Fe: frank, February 13, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    Over-generalization is of error.

    That some scientists regularly deceive means not that all scientists do such.

  10. Woosty,

    Still answer as to why you view it differently? If its obvious to you, it should be easy to explain.

    Look, I’m not advocating punishing the parents. I’m advocating protecting the children. The question is do you think this is the kind of behavior that can be changed by a court order?

    This couple willfully let a child die. They made a choice, one that any reasonable person would know would lead to death or serious harm. I doubt it’s the first time they’ve made that decision either. I say, counseling and supervised visits, but until they’ve demonstrated their ability to make rational decisions, protect the kids. Foster care sucks, but that’s an argument for reforming the Foster care system, not letting the kids stay with someone who values their life so little.

  11. Gyges 1, February 14, 2011 at 10:18 am

    Woosty,

    Still (no) answer as to why you view it differently? If its obvious to you, it should be easy to explain.
    ——————————————

    Good morning Gyges,
    You mean still no answer as to why I view it differently than you?

    I have seen NOTHING that shows me that these parents abused thier kids in any other fashion. What I read was that they were all pretty stellar in school, well cared for and that the parents were not only remorsefull but actively agreed to the terms of the court.[which includes supervised medical care for 10 years for the other children and probation for the parents]

    I don’t think these people WILLFULLY neglected that child….they did however MISTAKENLY neglect that child and in part because of a severe pressure from the cult they belonged to….a pressure that still exists btw if you research the event. I’d like to know why the church leader was not questioned….coercion by churches is kinda like torture by the state….it’s not nice.

    Re-read my post of Woosty’s still a Cat 1, February 12, 2011 at 11:22 am ….have you found something different to the scenario to add to the conversation???

  12. Woosty,

    I don’t care if the parents thought they were doing the right thing. People who abuse children often think it is the right thing to do. Anyone in this society can be expected to reasonably know that NOT taking a kid with pneumonia to the doctor could kill them, just like a person in this society can be expected to reasonably know that hitting a child will damage them both physically and mentally. I also don’t care if the parents were pressured into it by a cult. Just like I wouldn’t care if the parents were pressured into letting their young daughter get “married” to an older man.

    I care about exactly one thing: Are the remaining children safe?

  13. “Anyone in this society can be expected to reasonably know that NOT taking a kid with pneumonia to the doctor could kill them, just like a person in this society can be expected to reasonably know that hitting a child will damage them both physically and mentally.” Gyges
    —————-

    Gyges, where is the evidence that these people knew he had pneumonia? What I read was that they thought he was getting better and why the equation with ‘hitting’ the child? I find that to be distressingly misleading….

    http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/12/pennsylvania_couple_convicted.html

  14. Parents let their children die.

    I let my son and his wife die.

    I talked, from Oak Park, with my daughter-in-law, Shelly Dukes, on Wednesday evening, February 7, 1996, explaining in great detail why the forecast weather for Saturday, February 10, 1996 was such that neither Michael’s nor Shelly’s winter driving skills would make it as safe as I thought necessary on Saturday for the driving rhey had planned, and, having learned to drive in northern Minnesota, suggested that we change plans so I could do the driving should the weather be as predicted.

    Shelly listened, but categorically dismissed my strong concerns.

    The last thing I said to her was, “You are confusing wants with needs; and, sometimes, when people do that, bad things happen.”

    I killed my son and his wife because I failed to smash their car to bits before that Saturday morning. Yes, I had then, as I have now, a sixteen pound sledge hammer and a railroad pick, and those tools, used as I knew and yet know how to use them, would have revealed the defective welds before my failure to test the welds as needed killed them.

    Want to blame a parent for not protecting a child from an unforeseen cause of the child’s death? Go ahead.

    But first, take me to a state with the death penalty and have me condemned to death for my failure, for, unlike the parents some seek to blame for not understanding what they were not given to understand, I actually knew and understood the sort of risk that February 10, 1996 weather presented.

    If the parents who are not sufficiently aware of a risk are to be punished for their unawareness, how much more punishment do I not deserve for I both knew and understood the magnitude of the possible risk.

    And those who judge the parents who make unavoidable mistakes, how much more at fault at those who find fault without recognizing simple truths, such as, driving to see a physician contains the possibility of an automobile collision with six deaths for of which were averted by not seeking medical care.

    No one is immune to not understanding what is not understood.

    The hypothetical construct of a person who can do what cannot be done is absurd, insanely absurd.

    Consider another absurd hyupothetical:

    As an Absurd Hypothetical, I am the Risen Christ. So, as the Risen Christ, I declare, “To Hell with Absurd Hypotheticals masquerading as actual reality.

    Anyone notice the internal inconsistency therein?

    “Internal Inconsistency” identically equals “Not So.”

    Want more absurd hypotheticals? I have about as good an imagination as I suppose anyone has.

    Need more? I imagine I can imagine imagining many more. But why?

    Is it anything other than wise to give reality a chance?

Comments are closed.