-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.
It is unwise for Christians to reject the discoveries of science even though scientists do lie, cheat, and deceive the public regularly about their discoveries or research and deserve to be viewed with extreme caution.
Nonetheless, medicine is a blessing and evidence of a magnificent and merciful God. Few Christians reject modern medicine and a good deal of them serve God in the field of medicine at virtually all levels from surgeons and nurses to ancillary personnel who staff hospitals and clinics.
And so the hysteria such cases create among the self-righteous, holier-than-thous godless members of society is nigh unto superstitious in nature and lacking in any rational scientific scrutiny. These cases are very rare especially in comparison to some really hair-raising cases only the godless could be behind.
I do think that no one should be forced to take inoculations and that any such children opting out should have other places to go to school or be home schooled. As we are talking about the case of physically invading the bodies of healthy children with chemicals they might not need and could be harmful, and I find forcing this on anyone to be repulsive. And I think it is a not a suitable thing for a free people to do.
Yet, the godless are not without criticism regarding science and medicine, and to be precise, regarding more criticism.
Here is what the “invisible magic being [I am my own Alpha and Omega]” of the godless looks like when combined with science, medicine, and error:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/19/2011-01-19_philadelphia_abortion_doctor_kermit_gosnell_charged_with_murdering_7_infants_wit.html
To quote:
“Gosnell ‘induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord,’ Williams said”.
Well of course he did. The doctor is a godless fundie liberal! He is probably an Obama supporter too. Dontcha think?
The whole story is quite awful.
Now, Gosnell’s alleged conduct wasn’t the result or actions of a loving parent who is simply making a bad and uninformed decision. Is it? The doctor will hopefully get what he deserves. And the intentional harm he did is not to be compared to the unintentional harm of the unfortunate Christian parents who love their children.
But, better doctors than Gosnell get away with much more than what the parents have done. This is fully acceptable to the to the liberal and those who boast a respect for science and medicine.
To his credit, Williams (the District Attorney) is a Democrat. Though, clearly, he is not smart enough to recognize, what might be his role in this nightmare.
Guilt pangs perhaps? Unlikely.
50 million lives snuffed out in the womb is a kill rate of innocent life that beats out Stalin’s. That’s Democrats and science for ya.
Democrats sure must be proud! Did I mention that blacks have about five times the rate of abortions as whites? Did I mention that mostly white doctors have done that awful deed? Well, nowadays, things have changed a bit. We now import foreign doctors [with names like Gupta and Mohammad] to bump off Americans at a rate higher than any single mass murderer in the history of the world.
Did I mention genocide? I digress. Maybe.
It’s compassion, you see. It’s “medicine”. It’s “science”. It’s the godless science stuff that Christian fundies are too stupid to understand. It’s the better way.
You can trust the doctors! No need to fear them!!!!
There you have it, 50 million tiny little human organisms snuffed out in the womb by “compassion” and ‘science”, “medicine” and liberals. That’s something to get hysterical about.
It’s a brutal record fully befitting the invisible magic being who dwells alone inside the dark caverns of the godless or Theophobic mind.
James in LA 1, February 12, 2011 at 12:17 pm
1.Wootsy, just because you are free to express religion does not make it any less B.S. Just you are free to express it, I am free to dismiss it, and seek more rational sources of solutions for what is essentially an administrative function.
2.Religion always ends up calling for the death of those with whom you do not agree. Luckily, the same amendment you quote allows us to unmask religion for what it is: poison to rational debate.
3.Because you, me, everyone is capable of service to one another through unconditional love without need of a deity or religion. You just have to want to do it is all.
________________________________
Wow, talk about a nerve.
1. You are absolutely free to dismiss it in your life. Just because you say it is BS does not make it so. I do have my beliefs….they are nowhere near as fundamental as to limit ANY other persons rights whatsoever. I have every right to practice MY religion provided it does not cause harm to others.
Administrative in what sense?
2.horseshit The LAW is ALWAYS an ass…..
3.mostly agree….unconditional is what I got from my Mommy….it is no longer practiced as an adult except as given to children and animals…That couple who so grievously failed thier child loved and believed thier G*d ‘unquestioningly’ and ‘unconditionally’….
Parents do not OWN their children, they are custodians. I consider religious indoctrination of children prior to them having the capacity to rationalize or weigh the truth of a thing for themselves to be a form of abuse and assault. I feel the same way about physical matters like circumcision on infants. If circumcision is to be used as a tribal totem and rite of passage, then it should be done only with the informed consent of the child after reaching puberty.
These people literally murdered their child by denying available treatment just as surely as if they had put him in an air tight room. I don’t care if they believe that what they were doing was in the best interest of their child since the child had no input in the decision making. If a child is incapable of making such a life/death decision, then the default should be that an act of refusing treatment that could lead to his death should not be made by anyone.
And not a question of punishment, it’s a question of justice and deterrence. Adults can believe in and practice and wacky thing they desire, but leave the kids alone.
Blouise: Having thought more about it, I think most priests avoid being alone with children now. People are on the look out. The predators that are still out there look for populations that are not well informed.
“Because you, me, everyone is capable of service to one another through unconditional love without need of a deity or religion. You just have to want to do it is all.”
Bingo!
Wootsy, just because you are free to express religion does not make it any less B.S. Just you are free to express it, I am free to dismiss it, and seek more rational sources of solutions for what is essentially an administrative function.
Religion always ends up calling for the death of those with whom you do not agree. Luckily, the same amendment you quote allows us to unmask religion for what it is: poison to rational debate.
Because you, me, everyone is capable of service to one another through unconditional love without need of a deity or religion. You just have to want to do it is all.
“Religion always poisons the public debate.” ~James in LA 1, February 12, 2011 at 11:08 am
____________________________________________
No James, Religion IS the public debate….
Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Disagree with you, Blouise. I have known some good priests. I don’t think there has been a single case of a Jesuit doing anything improper with a child. One does need to check the situation out though. I know a person very well who was sexually abused by the family’s pediatrician not a priest.
My grandfather, a physician born just before the turn of the century, used to tell me stories of how he had to bring orders to show cause against idiots like these and would win an order to treat the patients (his practice was in Riverdale, NY).
What changed?
Their god did not cure the child … end of discussion.
So I guess the question is whether or not these parents should be placed in a situation where they will have the opportunity to harm their other children. The Judge obviously thinks so … and the only way I would agree with him is if he has arranged for weekly, in-home supervisory visits by a qualified social worker from Children Services or VNA (Visiting Nurse Association) wherein each child is seen and given a quick check (eyes, ears, throat, temp). That’s weekly, 52 times a year, every year until the youngest child turns 18. These parents lost their “right” to unsupervised religious freedom the moment they denied their son his “right” to live because of that religion.
My opinion in this matter may sound harsh but just wait till you hear what I think of any Catholic parent who allows their child to be alone with any member of their ordained priesthood.
James in LA 1, February 12, 2011 at 11:08 am
What if the parents had said, “because we were busy that night.” What is the freaking difference?!?
———————————-
What if? In this instance they did not say that. In this instance, for all we know, they truly believed what they said they believed and were acting in what they thought was a loving and beneficial way to that child. It was a huge mistake. That does not mean the RISK of removing those other kids or causing them stigma by having the parents incarcerated is the right idea….I know probation is not perfect (and I am respnding without first-hand knowledge of that…) but it seems to me that the court has stipulated that for the rest of the other childrens dependant lifetimes there will be oversight to the parents behavior towards them regarding medical needs. And I’m sure social workers and all that…already there is impact of stigma…why add more trauma????
——————-
“You cannot paint all foster care situations with the same brush, not unless you are willing to take these kids on yourselves.”
Yes, exactly! Sounds like you were very lucky in your circumstance…good for you!
But for children, let’s take luck out of the equation as best we can.
Gingerbaker 1, February 12, 2011 at 11:32 am
“Have you seen the statistics for what happens to children in 1 parent or foster care environments?”
Have you seen the statistics of what happens to children in the Schaible family? I guarantee they are worse.
———————————
The statistical (using your terminology) point of possibility has been diverted by the law. You scream for punishment….which is OCCASIONALLY appropriate when used to PREVENT FURTHER OCCURANCE OF HARMFUL EVENTS. You just like the blood I think….you are not alone….yum yum…feed your inner beastie!
Wootsy ‘s still a Cat had a nerve struck. I never said “off with their heads.” Probation is not the answer here. And to complain about foster care as the reason not to reach into a home to aid children against abusive parents is ridiculous.
I am a product of foster care, and the foster parents were much better at it. You cannot paint all foster care situations with the same brush, not unless you are willing to take these kids on yourselves.
When the parents do not protect the rights of their children for ANY reason, the role of the State is to step in and do so. Probation isn’t “stepping in.” It’s setting the stage for another death.
Have you seen the statistics of what happens to children in the Schaible family? I guarantee they are worse.
What if the parents had said, “because we were busy that night.” What is the freaking difference?!?
_________________________________________
You and many others confuse the role of the state…and law. The law is not your parent….whose actions reflect (or should anyway….) thier love for you. The state protects your RIGHTS (or should anyway….)
If you want the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit of the law you will not be happy with what you create…
These parents erred. You scream “Off with their heads!” like there is no better recourse. They have other children whose right to grow up in a family will be traded for the blood you scream for. Have you seen the statistics for what happens to children in 1 parent or foster care environments?
And you obviously think losing a child is no small thing to these people. Are you assholes? The law is not there to punish as much as it is to ensure that our rights are protected. PERIOD. I hope you never have to experience the cruel vindictiveness of your own bloody selfish natures.
Grow the F*CK up already!
What if the parents had said, “because we were busy that night.” What is the freaking difference?!? Any home preaching fundy mind games to a kid is a target for child protective services. Religion is not an excuse, and we must not continue to allow it to be used as a get out of jail free card.
Religion always poisons the public debate.
I think this case sets an important new precedent – that parents have the right to kill their own children without suffering jail time. As Bill Cosby said, “I brought you into this world, and I can take you out”. Little did he know that his wisdom would become legal doctrine.
No?
Well, I’ll tell you what this case does illustrate. That religion is given way too much deference in this country. The idea that two adults could deliberately, openly, and without shame cause intense suffering to a child to the point of the child’s death without suffering jail time or even the loss to protective custody of other children they control is sickening to me.
That their claim – that an invisible sky god would magically cure their child – is actually given credence today, given our understanding of science and the nature of reality, is a maddening indictment of the accommodation of religious lunacy, and the dangers of a constitutionally-protected institution devoted to the inculcation of irrational thought throughout every thread of society.
I really do think that it is time for a national conversation about reducing the influence of religion in our country, and discussing ways to minimize its obviously over-generous constitutional protections and municipal privileges.
In this instance I’d say that justice was not abused.
These parents were not meeting the needs of these children. But why is the law then not protecting other people from the fraud,neglect and abuse of insurance companies? The ‘law’ seems to exert itself in a most arbitrary and self serving fashion at times….
This is a difficult case, in my mind. Obviously rational, normal people read about this madness and want to apply the law in the way such abuse dictates.
But throw in the invisible sky wizard and you run right up against the history of religious freedom in America. If you say that freedom does not allow parents to deny medical care to their children where do you draw the line? How would you decide which religious ceremonies and traditions are “OK” and which are criminal? If a church professes a practice that results in a crime should the state move against that church? Who gets to decided?