…and this is a 
My home state! In a region with some of the highest percentages of godless people in the country! And they have this awful law on the books.
Washington's law specifies that a person treated through faith healing "by a duly accredited Christian Science practitioner in lieu of medical care is not considered deprived of medically necessary health care or abandoned." Other religions are not mentioned.
Christian Science is not science, and it is definitely not medicine. I presume some religious lobby got this evil exemption on the books years ago, but now it's time to remove it—it's killing people. The mention of the law comes from a story about a young man, Zachery Swezey, who died a slow, painful death from a ruptured appendix, with his parents looking on.
The day his son died, Greg Swezey told sheriff's investigators he knew Zakk would die 10 or 15 minutes before the teenager passed away. His condition had gotten much worse about an hour and a half before Zakk died, he told the investigators, and he realized Zakk was exhibiting some of the symptoms of death he'd seen when older church members died.
He did not consider calling an ambulance, he told them.
Who did he call instead? Elders of his church, who showed up to splash oil on the poor kid and pray.
I can only imagine what that was like. I had severe appendicitis as a child, and their description of it is mild: sure, there was vomiting — like an acid geyser firing up your throat. They don't even mention the agony and the fever and the intermittent loss of consciousness. And I didn't even get to the point of having a rupture, because my parents did the sensible, reasonable, intelligent thing that any decent human being would do, and rushed me to the doctor, and then to the hospital.
I'm very happy to say that my parents loved me more than some insane primitive dogma, although, you know, that really isn't saying much.
I'm very sorry that young Zakk isn't around to say the same.
Change the law, Washingtonians.
By the way, you can find out more about this lunatic cult, The Church of the First Born, on their web page. They're incoherent and nuts. Warning: the page fires up religious music as soon as it loads. Yeah, one of those.
Wikipedians might want to take a look at their Wikipedia entry, too. It's pretty clearly written entirely by one of their acolytes — you can tell by all the exclamation points.
Church of the Firstborn - A Phrase/Title found in Scripture! - (Hebrews 12:23).
Not a Denomination! Not an Organization!Founded Much Earlier than any of the groups mentioned below!
The Head of This Church/Assembly is The Very One that you read about in The Holy/Qodesh Scriptures! (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:18) Members in This Church/Assembly Serve Him & His Father (To Whom we regard as Our Heavenly Father and HIS Son - The Messiah/Our Master & Savior) The First Born from the Dead - Leading the Way for all those that Believe & Follow Him/HIM, Never To Die Again!
It Is Not A Denomination! And It Is Not An Organization In Scripture!
Medicine & Health
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Richard Harris | August 28, 2009 10:11 AM
I hope that the god-botherers are prosecuted. Unfortunately, being religion-crazy isn't a criminal act. But some jurisdictions have laws on the books that would nail these nutjobs.
Posted by: rob | August 28, 2009 10:12 AM
the parents and the church elders should be tried for manslaughter.
Posted by: M Clifford Pickard | August 28, 2009 10:13 AM
Wisconsin has a similar law, and for the benefit of Christian Scientists. The Kara Nuemann case is one such example where the law did not hold.
But Wisconsin residents can act against religious exemptions for "faith healing."
Contact your rep and ask them to support LRB-2190 currently in draft.
Read more about it here:
http://hypatianshore.blogspot.com/2009/07/liberals-conservatives-can-both-agree.html
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 10:19 AM
Children are not a possession.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 28, 2009 10:19 AM
How, how, HOW does such a law ever get to the point of being voted upon? Nevermind ratified... WTF???
Posted by: Eric B | August 28, 2009 10:21 AM
How sad, how very sad. Misinformed people making judgments about medical care when they have no educational background to be making such decisions....makes me sad, especially as an educator of high school students. I see similar abuse daily, and it is CHILD ABUSE.
Posted by: anon | August 28, 2009 10:21 AM
I also had appendicitis at about that age, I really feel for the poor kid, it was hell.
Posted by: Ray Ingles | August 28, 2009 10:23 AM
Michigan has a related exemption, but it doesn't apply to homicide. Is there any kind of national effort to get these laws repealed, or at least modified to that extent?
Posted by: Ploon | August 28, 2009 10:25 AM
"Symptoms of death"? What, like not breathing or not having a pulse?
Posted by: rob | August 28, 2009 10:25 AM
OT:
this article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/28/google_earth_nessie/
has a google earth picture of the loch ness monster.
however, if you look at the enlarged picture, i think you will recognize it for what it really is...
Posted by: MK | August 28, 2009 10:26 AM
#5
I believe this would be the same as any law gets passed in this country. Much of political compromises, you give this statute, we keep this statute. Or, it would be a part of State GI bill, if there is any such. You can't block it. So, this kind of insane things gets into the books.
So much for Obama's bipartisanship. We will have a lot more like this in the federal laws too by the end of his four years if he keeps up with such stupid philosophy.
Posted by: TheClapp | August 28, 2009 10:31 AM
The Wikipedia page was edited *while I was looking at it*. The edit comment is "restoring to previous, comprehensible version". :)
The version PZ linked to is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_the_Firstborn&oldid=303900522 .
Posted by: Hughes | August 28, 2009 10:31 AM
I was really open to receiving the word of the Lord but unfortunately they password protect alot of their website.
Oh well. It seems you need a password to get in to heaven. Does this mean the Mormons are right?
Posted by: rpsms | August 28, 2009 10:33 AM
I am reminded of the luminary Dr. Bronner who said:
DON'T DRINK SOAP!!! DILUTE! DILUTE! OK!!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 28, 2009 10:35 AM
MK #11
Yeah... I get that... It was sort of a rhetorical question.
Posted by: Walton
|
August 28, 2009 10:36 AM
It's relatively rare for me to agree with Professor Myers on a political matter, but on this issue I agree with him totally. Christian "Science", and other forms of faith-healing, are dangerous nonsense and responsible for many unnecessary deaths. If adults want to subject themselves to this woo instead of seeking proper treatment, that's fine; but they do not have the right to throw away their children's lives because of their insane beliefs. If we have laws to protect children from abuse and neglect, then we must protect them from all such abuse and neglect, including that motivated by religion.
Posted by: Sastra | August 28, 2009 10:37 AM
Part of the reason exemptions like this make it on the books is the special consideration people feel they're obligated to give religion. We can't have the government look as if it is officially saying that prayer doesn't work, can we? That's a private matter of conscience.
Except, of course, the inconvenient fact that it really doesn't work leads to innocent deaths.
Our culture also need to stop putting too much emphasis on whether or not the parents meant well -- or whether or not their beliefs are sincerely held -- or whether or not their faith healing is part of what's considered a "real" religion. Ignorance, gullibility, stubbornness, and willful blindness are not trumped by piety and good intentions.
Posted by: Bob O'H | August 28, 2009 10:40 AM
It now dis-ambiguates to three possible Churches of the Firstborn. Of most interest here is "Church of the Firstborn (Morrisite)". Must be PZed's new local sect.Posted by: Bob O'H | August 28, 2009 10:42 AM
P.S. Can some of you help me by sending my wife to Antarctica, please. She's third, behind the Mormon son of Donny Osmond. Oh, the shame!
Posted by: speedwell | August 28, 2009 10:42 AM
Part of the reason exemptions like this make it on the books is the special consideration people feel they're obligated to give religion.
Scientology pushes this. If the Christian Science morons can get an exemption for "faith healing," then the Scienos think they can get one for their precious niacin overdose or whatever.
Posted by: llewelly | August 28, 2009 10:43 AM
The "Christian Science" religion has gotten related laws on the books in nearly every state. In some cases the law is worded to provide the exemption for all religions. More here: http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/1994/nov/swan.phpPosted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 10:45 AM
Trying to get rid of her are you Bob O'H?
Posted by: felixthecat
|
August 28, 2009 10:51 AM
Shame on us all. The only faith healing to receive positive sanction from the IRS is that of the Christian Scientists. They have a powerful congressional lobby which provides them with benefits and protection. And in every state there are graveyards filled with the corpses of children who received no care, only the medical services of CS cultists. And no one can touch any of these monsters because our legislators at every level are filling their bank accounts with CS funds.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 28, 2009 10:57 AM
treated through faith healing "by a duly accredited Christian Science practitioner in lieu of medical care is not considered deprived of medically necessary health care or abandoned."
See, first I was about to ask, "duly accredited BY WHOM, exactly?" then I saw that "in lieu of medical care" clause, and now I see: this exemption is logically untenable. (Not that such a problem ever stopped religiots before, of course.) If something happens "in lieu of medical care," then, by definition, the patient is deprived of medically necessary health care. What the Washington law really says is that it's okay to deprive someone of necessary medicine if the family is particularly religious. And, yes, Washington state really should know better. All states really should know better, if you get right down to it, but I was under the impression that Washington was among the less woo-soaked parts of our wacky country.
What's even funnier is that I recall there are some Bible verses that basically say doctors and medicine are God's way of healing the sick and injured. So if I'm recalling correctly, faith healing isn't even a logical conclusion of the usual Christian dogma; it's expecting God to make an exception for you, above the masses of other believers, just because you're so special.
Posted by: waldteufel | August 28, 2009 10:59 AM
Just another example of the essential evil that is religion.
Posted by: JackC
|
August 28, 2009 10:59 AM
Done and done, Bob O'H. Man, that sounds like a cool (um.. no pun intended) trip. I have always wanted to go to Antarctica - particularly after I gave up the chance while in the Navy. That was dumb.
JC
Posted by: ButchKitties | August 28, 2009 11:01 AM
When Dawkins talks about religious nonsense getting undeserved respect or I hear Steve Weinberg's quote about religion making otherwise well-meaning people do terrible things... stories like Zakk's are the first thing I think of. Whether these parents were acting out of malice or delusion, the end result is the same: they deliberately withheld medical treatment and directly contributed to their son's death. It's easy to blame wars and suicide bombers on conditions outside of religious delusion, but how to apologists explain something like this?
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | August 28, 2009 11:02 AM
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Odd - always thought R'lyeh was at the bottom of the Atlantic...Posted by: Tulse | August 28, 2009 11:04 AM
I'm curious as to what requirements are imposed on the government by the First Amendment -- if it did not allow for such religious practice, would that be seen as prohibiting the free exercise of religion?
Posted by: Bob O'H | August 28, 2009 11:05 AM
Shhhh. :-)Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 28, 2009 11:07 AM
I aint no lawyer (IANL), but this law sounds to me like a violation of the establishment clause. You know, Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. Indeed, it is such a blatant violation one wonders why it, or other such laws, have not been challenged on constitutional grounds.
The right of any person to worship God as they will ends when it endangers another, that is simple sense. This Washington state law endangers others, violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and needs to be struck down.
Posted by: Michael | August 28, 2009 11:07 AM
This is horrible. These parents weren't Christian Scientists although the outcome would have been the same with no medical treatment. Note that Christian Science Church is careful to say that their members are free to pursue medical treatment if they wish, (it covers them legally to say that) but the unofficial denominational pressure is to conform with their teaching.
Posted by: tms | August 28, 2009 11:10 AM
Hey PZ,
Yes, but they finally got rid of the State's Christmas nativity display. Too bad they won't allow a Festivus Pole either.
T
Posted by: Personal Failure | August 28, 2009 11:13 AM
That kid suffered. I had appendicitis. My parents took me to the hospital because I had tears rolling down my cheeks from the pain- I wasn't crying, I was just in that much pain. And my appendix didn't rupture.
Posted by: MMM.MD | August 28, 2009 11:14 AM
If the IRS accepts prayer and faith-healing as medicine, then, perhaps, I can offer prayers to jebus/Mary Baker Eddy on behalf of the IRS instead of sending buckets of dollars to them to satisfy my tax bill?
Posted by: raven | August 28, 2009 11:17 AM
These xian fundie faith healing deaths are just an old practice.
Known as human child sacrifice.
The tide seems to be turning on them. DA's are starting to prosecute. Results are mixed, sometimes juries convict, sometimes they don't.
Posted by: Rakehell | August 28, 2009 11:22 AM
Western Washington is largely woo-free; the eastern half, not so much.
I was slightly encouraged to read that this law is now coming into serious question. It doesn't completely cancel out the creeping horror, though.
Posted by: stogoe | August 28, 2009 11:23 AM
'Bipartisan' is Beltway code for 'nobody gets the blame if this turns out badly'. That's why there's so much emphasis on 'bipartisanship' in DC. It's CYA. If it's nobody's fault, the orgy keeps rolling.
I really don't understand how the Democratic Party politician's can't fathom what the liberal blogosphere has known for nigh on a decade - Republicans are not your friends. Their only goal is to see you fail so they can regain power. But I guess when you're out having drinks every night at the lobbyists' expense with those snakes, they don't seem like such bad guys.
Posted by: scarn | August 28, 2009 11:26 AM
Wow. So you can get away with murder in Washington for religious reasons. Good to know.
Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 28, 2009 11:27 AM
Mary Baker Eddy.
“It is plain that God does not employ drugs or hygiene, nor provide them for human use; else Jesus would have recommended and employed them in his healing. The sick are more deplorably lost than the sinning, if the sick cannot rely on God for help and the sinning can. … The universal belief in physics weighs against the high and mighty truths of Christian metaphysics. This erroneous general belief, which sustains medicine and produces all medical results, works against Christian Science[.] … If we would heal by the Spirit, we must not hide the talent of spiritual healing under the napkin of its form[.] … The tender word and Christian encouragement of an invalid, pitiful patience with his fears and the removal of them, are better than hecatombs of gushing theories, stereotyped borrowed speeches, and the doling of arguments, which are but so many parodies on legitimate Christian Science, aflame with divine Love.”
o Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, pp. 143:5, 155:15 (1867).
“The theory of three person in one God (that is, a personal Trinity or Tri-unity) suggests polytheism, rather than the one ever-present I AM. … Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared, but is the Son of God.”
o Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, pp. 256:9–11, 361:11–13 (1867).
Hitchens: “In Fulke Greville's unforgettable line, 'Created sick — Commanded to be well.'”
Posted by: stogoe | August 28, 2009 11:35 AM
Alan, it's because there are so many laws on the books like this all over the country, and there are so many people who are willing to look the other way if the religion that gets established is their own, and challenging even one of these unconstitutional laws takes years, decades even, and lots of money. There are only so many we can tackle through the legal system at a time, and all the while new turds just like one this are being smuggled into municipal, state, and federal laws. It's Sisyphean.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 28, 2009 11:35 AM
The law seems pretty clearly unconstitutional as written. It gives explicit endorsement to one particular sect. Sounds like establishment to me.
Granted, they could make it compliant with the Establishment clause while still being equally despicable if they just removed the "Christian Science" part and put "faith healer" or some other non-denominational indicator...
Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 28, 2009 11:51 AM
Granted, they could make it compliant with the Establishment clause while still being equally despicable if they just removed the "Christian Science" part and put "faith healer" or some other non-denominational indicator...
I still don't think that would be Establishment clause-compliant. Even using a non-denominational indicator would still be privileging religious groups over the law. It's saying, "You can get away with stuff the law normally forbids...if you're sufficiently religious." That gives a privileged status to religion that the state should not provide. It's bad enough that the general culture is so eager to treat religion with kid gloves no matter how much damage it causes; the law should not enforce that privilege. Leaving children to die of treatable illness is either illegal, or it isn't. Faith-based exemptions shouldn't appear in the lawbooks.
Posted by: Drosera | August 28, 2009 11:51 AM
Why would mentally sane, well-educated people want to pass such a law?
Well, that one answers itself, doesn't it?
Posted by: raven | August 28, 2009 11:55 AM
A Christian Science person, once told me they have a loophole. If your faith isn't strong enough or you aren't skilled enough in Xian Science, it is OK to go to the doctor.
Whether this is true or a rationalization, don't know.
Some observers claim that there is a lot of subterfuge and cheating in these faith healing cults. Some of the members sneak off to get medical treatment when no one is looking. Makes sense. Would you rather feel guilty for having a bottle of antibiotics or would you rather be dead?
Posted by: Mena | August 28, 2009 11:57 AM
Wow, even Guy de Chauliac was more scientifically advanced than that and he died almost 650 years ago! What's wrong with these people?
Posted by: GregB | August 28, 2009 11:58 AM
I was raised as a Christian Scientist.
I can give you some hope by saying that the fact that our belief system was so rediculed by society and the fact that it was so in contradiction with observable fact was a major reason why I left the church as soon as I moved out of my house at age 19.
Since CS is such a bizarre fringe belief system it was easier for me to see how insane it was and leave. I was pretty much done with it when I was 14. I was asking my parents to not make me go by the tiem I was 16. I specifically told them that I didn't believe this stuff. But you know the lecture : "As long as you're living under this roof you'll live under our rules."
So there is hope. There are reasonable, intellegent kids in CS and when theyire old enough to leave, they do. The ridicule just makes it easier to realize how screwed up that religion is and that makes it easier to leave.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 28, 2009 12:02 PM
To any xtians reading this, this is why some atheists are so vocal against your religion, and detest it. Our experience is that most xtians are not satisfied with keeping their unproven, irrational beliefs private, but want to legislate them unto the masses. I personally feel that there should be a mandatory litmus test for all proposed laws. That test would require the proponent(s) to be able to justify the law based on secular morals and reasoned logic. If a law's basis relies on sectarian philosophy or superstition in any way, it is rejected outright. Period.
Stop trying to legislate your religion and its unproven, dangerous beliefs. Stop screwing around with science (you fucking ID morons), our schools, our secular institutions (keep your displays in your churches!), and our government.
Posted by: Tulse | August 28, 2009 12:11 PM
I am also not a lawyer, but I would think the law forbidding religious practices would also run afoul of establishment. This is why, as I understand it, some Native American religious groups are legally allowed in the US to use peyote in their traditional rituals, despite the fact it is a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Remember that the First Amendment not only covers "establishment" of religion, but also "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Posted by: uncle frogy | August 28, 2009 12:13 PM
it crap like this makes me wish I did not "believe" in democracy as the best way to order society and could advocate some "benevolent enlightened dictatorship" instead I'm not even going to read the other post about the 11 year old girl abduction story just too much for me!
If I had "the power" I would be Darth Vader!
Posted by: Samwise | August 28, 2009 12:20 PM
Heh, rpsms. At least Dr. Bronner had a nice peppermint soap.
Posted by: Gregg | August 28, 2009 12:21 PM
RCW 9A.42.005. Title 9A is the state criminal code, and section 42 deals with criminal mistreatment. If you do a search of the Revised Code of Washington for "Christian Science," you will see that they get quite a bit of special treatment under the law.
Posted by: Minus | August 28, 2009 12:31 PM
I just applied for state disability in California. You have to get the form completed by your doctor explaining what is wrong with you. I noticed that they will accept forms filled out be a "religious practitioner." Your tax dollars at work.
Posted by: daveau | August 28, 2009 12:54 PM
The danger in respecting religion instead of ridiculing it for the superstition it is.
Posted by: Japhet | August 28, 2009 12:55 PM
Like some of the others in these responses, I was raised a Christian Scientist but became an atheist once I was an adult.
While there are undoubtedly wackos in every religion (they must feel comfortable or something) the standard practice in CS is to treat illnesses with the prayer; a kind of positive thinking that informs their world-view.
Any serious medical situation is supposed to be brought to the attention of medical authorities and I remember both myself and many other kids in the church being taken to the doctor with an assortment of broken bones, tonsillitis, concussions and yes, appendicitis.
On the flip-side, I never got any vaccinations until I got them myself when I was 24.
I'm no apologist and I definitely don't support the church but these kind of stories have been circulating forever and I don't think they reflect either the established viewpoint of the church or the majority of its members.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 12:59 PM
If this is the case, it doesn't speak well for their faith.
How do they reconcile that?
Posted by: bobxxxx | August 28, 2009 1:02 PM
"this lunatic cult" is a perfect description of every religion.
Posted by: Alden | August 28, 2009 1:02 PM
I was raised as a Christian Scientist as well, and had what may have been a brush with death when at 14. I was stricken with an undiagnosed (but truth-known-about!) chest infection of some sort. I have no way of knowing the degree of peril I faced - I was never examined by a physician - but my parents have told me since that they were a day away from taking me to medical professionals when I started getting better. So, at least in my family, there was faith but within limits.
I don't think I ever "believed" in it - I'm just not wired for religious faith. The whole proposition seems absurd to me and yet it still bugs me when people heap scorn on C.S.
Christian Science was a pretty big religion around 100 years ago - before antibiotics, open heart surgery and other features of modern medicine. Prevalent enough to attract the special loathing of Mark Twain. It must have had more appeal back in the day when there were few conditions that doctors could do anything about. The church has been in decline for a long time now. Even when I was a kid in the 70s, the church we went to was all old people.
Posted by: Natalie | August 28, 2009 1:03 PM
Japhet, I wonder how often that "take serious issues to medical professionals" is actually followed, personally. A former partner's mother had Christian Science people in her family (I believe one of her aunts had married in and converted). At least one of her cousins was not given medical attention for a broken arm. Granted, this would have been in the 70s, so common practice among the sect may have changed.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | August 28, 2009 1:04 PM
Also OT but too enjoyable to not mention - follow the link to http://www.theregister.co.uk/Wrap/playmobil/ to find out the real news stories you need to know about. Only in the Register....Posted by: Stellar Moose | August 28, 2009 1:04 PM
This is why when the U.S. breaks up under the force of wingnuttery I will support Oregon's forming The Republic of Cascadia with B.C. and Washington. The crazies will be forced to move to Idaho.
And we shall round the nutties up with our mighty Sasquatch Militia.
Posted by: Lurker 2.0 | August 28, 2009 1:05 PM
one of the fun bits about Washington law (am not a lawyer) is that criminal law has a very narrow insanity defense referred to as Deific Decree, potentially allowing people who think they hear God telling them to commit crimes get off on the insanity defense even if they understand the wrongfulness of their action.
(http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/36/1/95 for more info)
Posted by: ObSciGuy | August 28, 2009 1:07 PM
Nearly 60 comments an nobody has provided a link to the law in question - sheesh! ;)
You can find it here:
First section:
(PZ: you might include the link below the fold above??)
Posted by: Italics Fail | August 28, 2009 1:11 PM
Missing close in the article.
Posted by: Akiko | August 28, 2009 1:13 PM
Child murderers.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 1:14 PM
IT'S A SIGN FROM THE COSMIC MUFFIN!!! REPENT OR FOREVER SHALL YOU HAVE TO READ IN ITALICS!!!
Posted by: tomh | August 28, 2009 1:19 PM
In 1996 the first religious exemption allowing parents to withhold medical care was placed in federal law. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act requires states in the federal grant program to include failure to provide medical care in their definitions of child neglect, but also states: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as establishing a Federal requirement that a parent or legal guardian provide a child any medical service or treatment against the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian.” Courts have consistently ruled that the First Amendment does not include a right to deprive children of medical care, but state legislators nevertheless continue to give parents such rights by statute. Thirty nine states have religious exemptions in their abuse statutes and many children have died because of it. These cases are seldom brought to trial.
The Christian Science church is a special case and they wield influence far greater than their numbers would seem to warrant. Although membership numbers are secret, estimates in 2001 put U.S. membership in the Christian Science church at under 100,000, mainly elderly, and definitely declining. Yet they maintain paid lobbyists in every state, and many state legislatures seem to think they are a towering force and are afraid to confront them. The Church fights tooth and nail against any attempt to restrict their religious practices, mainly with regard to medical care, and, on the whole, they have been very successful at it.
Posted by: Mr T | August 28, 2009 1:19 PM
Praise his noodly appendage, the squiggly words, they are the sign we've been seeking! Everyone, make sure your pirate regalia is fully laundered before He comes!
Posted by: Spidergrackle | August 28, 2009 1:22 PM
Oops. That didn't work so well, did it?
Posted by: dutchdoc
|
August 28, 2009 1:22 PM
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Assembly_and_Church_of_the_First_Born :
Okay... WHO faryngulized that Wikipedia entry?
Posted by: Loosers | August 28, 2009 1:23 PM
USA is surprising, the highest density of morons in the world (Australia isn´t so far?)
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 28, 2009 1:26 PM
Let's see if I can fix this italics thing.
Posted by: RobC | August 28, 2009 1:35 PM
Whew----glad the Italics isn't just me. I have a really hard time reading it.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | August 28, 2009 1:37 PM
I don't think the italics issue is inside the blog post itself. It was fine earlier, now the whole front page is italicized. Maybe it's a style sheet issue?
Posted by: James Sweet | August 28, 2009 1:43 PM
I strongly agree, but current precedent is that faith-based exemptions, if not tied to a particular denomination, are not a violation of the Establishment clause. I think I might actually agree... non-specific faith-based exemptions are probably not unconstitutional, they are just STUPID.
"No, I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter what your rational objections are, this is the law. Oh wait, what's that you say? You don't have any rational objections at all, you just object on blind faith without any specific reasons? Well why didn't you say so! You're all good."
Posted by: Bivdub | August 28, 2009 1:51 PM
@37
I would hardly say that Western WA is woo free. Just different woo than Eastern WA. Don't forget this side of the mountains hosts places like the Discovery Institute and Bastyr. Medical woo is about as strong as it gets over here. It makes for real frustrating times talking to people over here who make fun of the religious for thinking such wacky things, but then call me close minded when I point out that things like naturopathy, homeopathy, and accupuncture are equally ridiculous. Woo definitely lives here.
Posted by: Die Anyway | August 28, 2009 1:53 PM
PZ wrote: "Christian Science is not science, and it is definitely not medicine."
I work in IT in the health care industry. There is an on-going attempt to standardize many aspects of terminology so that electronic health records can be shared between disparate systems. One of the areas being worked on is job titles. We (where I work) are making the following change to match with national standards:
Old Title: Christian Science Practitioner/Nurse
New Title: Religious Nonmedical Nursing Personnel
I'm finding it hard to accept that any health care institution would hire someone with either of the above titles. I don't know if you can bill the insurance companies for their services but it wouldn't surprise me.
Eat well, stay fit, Die Anyway.
Posted by: hamsammich | August 28, 2009 1:58 PM
Doh!! **facepalm**
More Pacific Northwest fucknuttery:
Ken Ham and 'Dr.' Lisle have a series of lectures to be presented in Tualatin, Oregon in September:
(Note - the lectures are free, but 'free will' offerings will be taken...)
Location
Rolling Hills Community Church
3550 SW Borland Road
Tualatin
Sunday, September 27, 2009
9:00 AM Ken Ham: Answers from Genesis on Darwin and the Culture Wars
11:00 AM Ken Ham: Answers from Genesis on Darwin and the Culture Wars (Repeat of the 9:00 am service)
6:00 PM Ken Ham: Defending Christianity from today`s Secular Attacks
7:30 PM Dr. Jason Lisle: The Ultimate Proof of Creation
Monday, September 28, 2009
9:00 AM to 10:30 AM Ken Ham: Dinosaurs, Genesis, and the Gospel (Grades K-6)
11:00 AM to 12:30 PM Ken Ham: How to Defend the Christian Faith Biblically and Scientifically (Grades 7-12)
6:30 PM Ken Ham: Answers for Racism: Darwin and Evolution's Racist Roots
8:00 PM Dr. Jason Lisle: The Darwin Connection to Astronomy
Posted by: Dennis | August 28, 2009 2:01 PM
Yeah, we may have a high rate of godlessness here in Washington, but we make up for it with nuttery, the Discovery inst. etc. The more east you go- the more nutty it gets.
Posted by: anon | August 28, 2009 2:01 PM
"The danger in respecting religion instead of ridiculing it for the superstition it is."
Yes, well, ridicule religion all you like, but please don't do it by vandalizing Wikipedia articles. This article has enough trouble with the "Followers of Christ" themselves editing it. We don't need His Noodly Appendage stirring things up more :)
Posted by: benjamingeiger.myopenid.com
|
August 28, 2009 2:03 PM
At least fixing the most prominent problem with the law would be rather simple. All you'd have to do is strike one word: the "not" in "is not considered deprived". We'll consider the Establishment Clause ramifications later.
Posted by: advertisinglies | August 28, 2009 2:13 PM
Come on PZ, you're from here, you know how we are. I don't care what you do just leave me out of it and leave me alone - that's the Washingtonian way!
The only true justice for the boy would be to change the law and prosecute the parents/the church. I called Cantwell and let her office know my position.
Posted by: fauxrs | August 28, 2009 2:16 PM
Religion is like a blind man, walking into a pitch black room searching for a black cat that isnt there.....and finding it.
these parents should be prosecuted.
Posted by: Jim | August 28, 2009 2:32 PM
@ Rev BDC. Hi there, yet another atheist raised as a Christian Scientist here. I was taught that for the healing to work the person needing healing had to have clear thinking. Pain interfers with clear thinking so first take care of the pain (go see a doc) and then clear thinking can resume. Of course I never considered that I may have been raised in the "reform" rather than the "ultra-orthodox" branch of the church. When a kid in the Sunday School I went to broke a bone they went to a doctor. Another funny thing was we all went to dentists on a regular basis, no one thought to faith heal tooth decay.
The bit about the decline of the CS Church may be true. The Sunday School I attended in the '50s and early '60s was empty by the '90s.
Posted by: Adam | August 28, 2009 2:33 PM
Come on now... Jesus obviously needed the kid to help command his holy army against the invading forces of Hell. He was divinely chosen to die. The family will now be going to Hell for praying against God's Plan. I mean really... His Plan is already made, praying to change it? What, do they know better than God?
...That said, they should be in prison for child abuse, neglect, manslaughter, and not believing in the one True(tm) holy being (FSM).
Posted by: bobxxxx | August 28, 2009 2:36 PM
The Discovery Institute is as insane as Kentucky's Creation Museum. Washington state isn't much different from the Bible Belt.
Posted by: Thorne | August 28, 2009 2:38 PM
@ #16 Walton: "If we have laws to protect children from abuse and neglect, then we must protect them from all such abuse and neglect, including that motivated by religion."
But wouldn't that also apply to religious brainwashing? Isn't teaching lies to children abusive? Can the law protect them from the mental damage instilled by a fear of the deity who supposedly loves them?
Would 'twere so!
Posted by: davem | August 28, 2009 2:42 PM
"on their web page."
...which just crashed FireFox. Wow! it must be a sign! Where can I sign up?
Posted by: cynickal | August 28, 2009 2:47 PM
On the bright side, the Christian Science churh on 16th and E Denny Way in Seattle is being converted into condos.
Finally something useful to do with a church.
Posted by: dutchdoc
|
August 28, 2009 2:51 PM
#69
Oh yes! Works perfectly. They will never die AGAIN. After the first time you die, you have had it. That's it. No more dying after that. NEVER AGAIN.
Posted by: Brian X | August 28, 2009 2:54 PM
Hamsammich:
Oddly enough, "Tualatin" was also the code name for the third generation of the Pentium III, the chip that proved that Intel had screwed up badly on the Pentium 4...
Posted by: Brian X | August 28, 2009 2:59 PM
Also there's a Church of the Firstborn in Hyannis, MA (I live one town over in Yarmouth). I don't know to what extent they're related to this lot, but I know they are Pentecostal and their bishop was my sister's landlord for a time.
Posted by: raven | August 28, 2009 3:06 PM
If this Church of the First Born is also known as Followers of Christ, it is the same cult that exists in Oregon and killed maybe 30 kids in a few decades.
They just had a trial over a two year old girl who died from lack of $15 of antibiotics. There was a conviction but it wasn't for much. There is also another trial for another kid.
Xian human child sacrifice is getting old. They came for the Aztecs, but I wasn't an Aztec....
Posted by: Randy | August 28, 2009 3:08 PM
As a Washington State resident (east side) let me apologize for this. We are not all like that... although more crazy resides on my side of the state more than the other; Our 5th District Representative being exhibit 'A'.
And as for Washington State not being much different than the bible belt (#86) that is just plain mean and nasty. We have our faults.. lots of them in fact. But for sheer xian fundy wackyness we don't hold a candle to those guys. Trust me, Discovery Institute or not, we are not even close to that. If you are in Spokane sometime I will buy you a beer and let you see for yourself.
Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 3:08 PM
Yeah, being a moderate is so awful. It's like cheating on your wife. Much better to have a nice, clean sectarian war. Fresh blood for everyone!
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 28, 2009 3:09 PM
Stogoe, #41
So this means we give up?
I say no. I say it means we go after those lying bastards harder then ever. We challenge such laws wherever and whenever promulgated, and keep challenging them until those who propose them flee like the rats they are.
And before anybody can mention that hoary old story, here's my latest take on it.
A man was once caught in a flood. Soon the waters overwhelmed the rooftop he had taken refuge upon and he drowned.
Standing before God's throne he demanded, "God, I prayed to you for hours and hours to save me; yet you did nothing. Why, God? Why?"
And the Lord looked down from His throne and said in reply, "You weren't about the accept any of the help I sent you, so why bother?"
Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 3:14 PM
Hey class, remember how the Spanish Civil War started?
Anyone? Bueller?
Lessee, the Communists and Socialists formed a majority government. Since they now had control they pushed hard for rapid secularization of the country.
This pissed off the Catholic right-wing elite SO much that they decided the gubbermint was illegitimate and took up arms to defeat it.
Yup, being a moderate is the most dumbass position ever. You never get what you want, and you're always having to shake hands with people you hate! It's just not fair! My toys! Mine!
Posted by: NoGurus | August 28, 2009 3:17 PM
Client: I don't know what I am doing here. I don't believe in doctors.
Dr.: You are here because you were committed. You were saved from trying to jump off a bridge you insisted wasn't real, into an ocean you insisted wasn't real. You said even if the ocean was real, and crushed all your bones, you could mend them with your mind.
Client: Matter isn't real. Only the mind is real.
Dr.: Unfortunately for you, you are here. And it's real. And your mind is stuck in it.
Client: I don't have to listen to you, you are not real! (Begins obsessive compulsive Christian Science rituals).
Dr.: Thorazine please!
And that's what Christian Science is. Mental illness that that is taught. Take away any religious context and it is just flat out crazy.
Posted by: Greta Christina | August 28, 2009 3:19 PM
I'm not sure which I'm more appalled by. The fact that there's a religious exemption at all for gross child neglect leading to death... or the fact that Christian Science is singled out by the law for a special exemption, in obvious violation of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Posted by: Zachary | August 28, 2009 3:27 PM
A cause worth supporting is the advocacy work performed by Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty, Inc. (CHILD), led by Rita Swan: http://www.childrenshealthcare.org.
Swan's associate and fellow advocate, Seth Asser, MD, leads an annual demonstration outside the "mother church" here in Boston every year: http://bostonatheists.org/news/2009/christian-science-protest.
Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 3:29 PM
@21
When fighting these laws, it might be profitable to point out that Christian Science's home state, Massachusetts, doesn't play that. (Mother Church is in Boston, Mass. on Huntington Ave near the Boston Symphony. It's a miniature St. Peter's, basically.) There's a long history of prosecuting Xtian Science parents for neglect or manslaughter in the deaths of their minor children.
Yeah, Mass. is the nanny state, but I had a lot fewer cases of gastroenteritis... Just sayin'.
Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 3:33 PM
@23
Hot damn, where are they getting the money? I thought the Christian Monitor organization was pretty much broke and hanging by a thread.
Anyway, aren't the Moonies the high rollers in DC? It's pretty fucking funny to see Christofascist darlings lining up for Rev. Sun Myung Moon's blessing. I guess it means for all their fundy talk that they're actually agnostics in that "a little holy water and some sacred beads can't hurt" sort of way.
Posted by: MikeyM | August 28, 2009 3:35 PM
-Mary Baker Eddy, eyeglass wearer
Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 28, 2009 3:37 PM
This pissed off the Catholic right-wing elite SO much that they decided the gubbermint was illegitimate and took up arms to defeat it.
I don't suppose that the fact that Hitler funded it while the U.S. government looked on "neutrally" had anything to do with it. For yuks, you might want to look up the term "premature anti-fascist".
Yup, being a moderate is the most dumbass position ever.
As Jim Hightower says, the middle of the road is where you find yellow stripes and dead armadillos.
Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 3:39 PM
Hey... is this the sort of story that goes on Where's The Harm?
It's hard for me to see popular support for these laws when it comes to a child's life or death. I know some serious bible thumpers who find this sort of thing horrific. Maybe it's because they're Black, making them different culturally from white bible thumpers. Dunno. But really, it's hard to see anyone outside these tiny cults defending this kind of stuff, except maybe radical libertarians who just chalk it up to Darwin in action. (As if you inherit buttfuckstupiditis in your genes... you know, I don't think so.)
Posted by: NoFear | August 28, 2009 3:40 PM
@GregB #47
"I was raised as a Christian Scientist.
I can give you some hope by saying that the fact that our belief system was so rediculed by society and the fact that it was so in contradiction with observable fact was a major reason why I left the church as soon as I moved out of my house at age 19.
...
So there is hope. There are reasonable, intellegent kids in CS and when theyire old enough to leave, they do. The ridicule just makes it easier to realize how screwed up that religion is and that makes it easier to leave."
Great, but that is not true for Zach Swezey is it? Nor the countless other minors who die for lack of medical care. How many do you think go unfound out or unreported? This was a dramatic case. How many babies die due to lack of due medical care and the death is written of as IDS? We probably have no idea how many chidlrens' deaths this religion has caused ..... and they surely decry abortion as baby killing .... fucking hypocrites.
Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 3:47 PM
@38
They aren't stupid. They want that tasty tasty campaign money, and cushy jobs for their friends and family members and boytoys and mistresses.
But seriously, the Congress would be less to the right if the public were more to the left. They aren't.
The Congress would be trust-busting and filing progressive tax reform bills if the public wanted that. They don't. They, like Joe Wurzelbacher, think fame and riches are right around the corner. They also delight in the thought of themselves winning and their neighbors losing. Crush the Joneses! Isn't that what Calvinism is all about? Hey, in a regressive tax environment with a leaky social safety net where one exists at all, when you lose, you lose HARD. More gloating for the winners.
Americans have got to be the most anti-social people on Earth. Maybe the French are right--we go wrong in preschool when we call the cops if a five year old gives another five year old a hug... no touching, more aggression. (And that's science.)
Posted by: NoFear | August 28, 2009 3:53 PM
"I am also not a lawyer, but I would think the law forbidding religious practices would also run afoul of establishment. This is why, as I understand it, some Native American religious groups are legally allowed in the US to use peyote in their traditional rituals, despite the fact it is a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Remember that the First Amendment not only covers "establishment" of religion, but also "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
The big difference here is that in the case of peyote use, people are doing something that only affects themselves while in the case of this church, their actions affect others. Here's the difference: Peyote should be legal for anyone to use while murder and negligent homocide/manslaughter should be illegal for everyone.
So I agree that both the peyote law and the law that protects christian scientists should be repealed, but so should the law making peyote use illegal in the first place.
Also, as was said earlier, religious freedom ends where there is significant risk of harm to another or another's rights are significantly infringed upon.
Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 3:53 PM
@49
Yes, but how far can you go in forcing your children to "exercise" your religion? Children aren't slaves.
The real hypocrisy is that CS and JW adults will often get medical care, while denying it to their children (to show god how devout they are). No question in my mind: child abuse.
Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 3:55 PM
@53 Minus
Beautiful. No wonder the system is broken.
Oh no, no wooster or priester would ever commit Medicaid fraud...
Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 4:00 PM
@71
USA is surprising, the highest density of morons in the world (Australia isn´t so far?)
I dunno ... there's a whole lot of stupid in Saudi Arabia as well.
Aw, what am I saying? WE'RE NUMBER ONE!
Posted by: Iris | August 28, 2009 4:02 PM
AK@96:
Oh. No. You. Didn't.
Posted by: Shadow
|
August 28, 2009 4:08 PM
Interesting that all the 'no special rights' groups are silent on all the exemptions for the religious.
Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 4:10 PM
@104
I guess being an extremist means never having to say you're sorry.
Well, enjoy your Londo/G'Kar mutual strangling fest. I'll still to Realpolitik. Bismarck's, not Kissinger's. That guy was an ass.
Posted by: stogoe | August 28, 2009 4:29 PM
I didn't say the battle wasn't worth fighting, just pointing out the full scope of the problem.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 28, 2009 4:45 PM
"...a duly accredited Christian Science practitioner..."
Accredited Christian Science Nursing Facilities:
http://csncommission.org/facilities-organizations/
And there are Christian Science Nursing programs:
http://aocsn.org/
If only appendicitis could be cured by a nurse.
Posted by: MadScientist | August 28, 2009 4:59 PM
Not only should they get rid of that law which exempts a specific religion from prosecution when it encourages homicide via neglect, but we need laws making it a criminal offense to tell people that prayer is any damned good. Too many people suffer because of some peoples' weird-ass beliefs.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 28, 2009 5:14 PM
Why is this organization still allowed to harm people's health!?
Posted by: Bert Chadick | August 28, 2009 5:15 PM
After looking at the website maintained by these loons I have concluded that they are guilty of "Font Abuse", and HTML deviancy. Now I have to go put some eye-drops in and wait for my eyeballs stop throbbing.
Posted by: Origuy | August 28, 2009 5:19 PM
Mark Twain, Christian Science
http://www.classicreader.com/book/1286/
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 28, 2009 5:23 PM
From an article on LexisNexis:
Copyright (c) 2007 New England School of Law New England Law Review, Fall, 2007, 42 New Eng. L. Rev. 155, 22233 words, NOTE: PROSECUTION WITHOUT PERSECUTION: THE INABILITY OF COURTS TO RECOGNIZE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SPIRITUAL HEALING AND A SHIFT TOWARDS LEGISLATIVE ACTION, Allison Ciullo*
"... Abstract: A number of states have exemptions written into their neglect or manslaughter statues to protect the decision of Christian Scientists to practice spiritual healing. ..."
PLEASE tell me that California isn't one of them!
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 28, 2009 5:33 PM
Something I never wanted to know:
"...fees paid to Christian Science nurses and sanitoria are reimbursable by Medicare and Medicaid."
SYMPOSIUM: INEQUITIES IN HEALTHCARE: ARTICLE: Spiritual Healing, Sick Kids and the Law: Inequities in the American Healthcare System
NAME: Janna C. Merrick +
BIO: American Journal of Law & Medicine, 29 (2003): 269-299
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 28, 2009 5:38 PM
From same 2003 article I just cited:
"We have already discussed the spiritual exemptions from vaccinations that exist in forty-eight states. Additionally, most states have spiritual exemptions from metabolic testing of newborns, ten states have exemptions from mandatory prophylactic eye drops and some states have exemptions from lead poisoning screens, physical exams for school children and studying about disease. Perhaps the most significant and controversial exemptions are those found in child abuse and neglect statutes. Thirty-nine states have religious exemptions in their civil codes and thirty-one in their criminal codes. According to CHILD, Iowa and Ohio each provide a religious defense to manslaughter, Delaware and West Virginia provide a religious defense to murder of a child, Arkansas provides a religious defense to capital murder and Oregon provides a religious defense to homicide by abuse."
Posted by: DominEditrix | August 28, 2009 6:01 PM
19: Done! Ask her to say hello to the penguins for me.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | August 28, 2009 6:01 PM
Calgeorge, have you been able to find a website with those statutes on it? I can't find them, and I'd really like to see them, because it makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 28, 2009 6:16 PM
#125. Not yet.
Posted by: tomh | August 28, 2009 6:28 PM
@ #123
"Oregon provides a religious defense to homicide by abuse."
Oregon law was changed in 1999 to eliminate a religious defense for homicide and abuse charges. This made no difference in the recent faith healing case when a husband and wife were acquitted of manslaughter charges in the death of their 15 month old baby after substituting prayer for medical treatment. The husband was convicted of misdemeanor criminal mistreatment and sentenced to 60 days in jail.
The problem is, just getting rid of the statutes doesn't really solve the problem, as defense lawyers can always slip in the religious background one way or another. Juries are very sympathetic to this kind of defense and the problem won't go away until the churches responsible for the brainwashing are eliminated.
Posted by: Melody | August 28, 2009 6:32 PM
Oh, for shame. Reminds me of the Christian Science reading center thingy that was in my college town in Washington. Although, at that time I didn't know what Christian Science was. Then I read about some of the children whose medical care was denied. Painful reading.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 28, 2009 6:33 PM
More footnote chasing. This is from 1998/99:
2 Quinnipiac Health L.J. 73
SYMPOSIUM: Moral, Economic, and Social Issues in Children's Health Care: On Statutes Depriving a Class of Children of Rights to Medical Care: Can this Discrimination be Litigated?
NAME: by Rita Swan, Ph.D.+
"Eleven states had a religious exemption to either civil or criminal charges in 1974. n45 Today most states have a religious exemption to civil dependency or neglect charges n46 or a reli [*81] gious defense to a criminal charge. n47 Many states have religious exemptions in both civil and criminal codes. n48"
Footnote 46 gives the states and the statutes:
n46. Ala. Code 26-14-7.2 (1997); Alaska Stat. 47.17.020(d), 47.10.085 (Michie 1997); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 8-546(B), 8531.01 (West 1997); Ark. Code Ann. 12- 12-512(2)(A) (Michie 1997); Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 16509.1 (West 1997); Colo. Rev. Stat. 19-3-103 (1997); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 46b-120(9), 17a-104 (West 1998); Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, 901(11) (1997); D.C. Code Ann. 16-2301(9) (1997); Fla. Stat. Ann. 415.503 (West 1997); Ga. Code Ann. 15-11-2(8) (1997); Idaho Code 16-1602(t)(1), 16-1616(c) (1997); 23 Ill. Comp. Stat. 2053, 2054(4) (West 1998); Iowa Code 255.10 (1997); Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-1502(b) (1996); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 600.020(1) (Banks-Baldwin 1997); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Ch. C. art. 603(14) (1997), La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14:403.2(B)(8) (West 1997); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, 4010 (West 1997); Mich. Comp. Laws 722.634(14) (1998); Minn. Stat. 626.556(2)(c), 626.556(6) (1998); Miss. Code Ann. 43-21-105(1)(i) (1997); Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-102(3)(b) (1997); N.D. Cent. Code 50-25.1-05.1(2) (1997); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. XIX (1997); N.J. Stat. Ann. 9:6-8.21(c) (West 1997); Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.5085 (1997); N.M. Stat. Ann. 32A-4-2(c)(5) (Michie 1997); Or. Rev. Stat. 419B.005(1) (1997), Or. Rev. Stat. 163.555(b) (1997); 23 PA. Cons. Stat. 6303(b)(3) (1998); R.I. Gen. Laws 40-11-15 (1997); VT. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, 4912(3)(B) (1997); VA. Code Ann. 16.1-228(2), 63.1-248.2(2) (Michie 1997); Wash. Rev. Code 26.44.020(3), 72.05.200 (1997); Wis. Stat. 48.981 (West 1997); Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-3-202(a)(vii) (Michie 1997). The exemptions of Maryland, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Missouri are for non-medical remedial treat ment, which some churches claim includes faith healing (Md. Code Ann., Cts. Of Jud. Proc. 3-801 (1997); S.C. Code Ann. 20-7-490(3)(c) (Law Co-op 1997); Tenn. Code Ann. 37-1-157(c) (1997); Mo. Rev. Stat. 211.31(1)(a), 211.181 (1997)).
Linking to the California Code cite above yields:
Cal Wel & Inst Code § 16509.1 (2009)
§ 16509.1. Treatment of child through prayer
"No child who in good faith is under treatment solely by spiritual means through prayer in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof shall, for that reason alone, be considered to have been neglected within the purview of this chapter."
The law starts to kick in after the prayer stops working, I guess.
Posted by: nick bobick | August 28, 2009 6:42 PM
This seems like as good a place as any to share a word I came across the other day. It should be in the lexicon of any pharyngulite and other rational people. It is usefult and descriptive of woo-ists, conspiracy theorists, creationist, and other nutters:
misology - fear, hatred or distrust of reason and logic
Use it liberally.
Posted by: crewvy | August 28, 2009 6:54 PM
L O LO L, that would be a few rungs below shaman almost to witchdoctor status?
Posted by: Richard Smith | August 28, 2009 7:07 PM
Something caught my eye on the loonified version of the Wiki page:
Around (aka approximately) + ~ (aka approximately) + c. (aka circa, aka approximately). Toss in a number that looks pretty precise (ie, not ending with 0). I am shocked, shocked! I tell you, that some feel that detail like this must be edited out of
ConservapediaWikipedia!Posted by: WMDKitty | August 28, 2009 7:07 PM
Big hello to PZ from a fellow Washingtonian!
I am so ashamed of my home state right now. On the other hand, if these wingnuts want to kill themselves off by not seeing doctors, I fully support it -- fewer wingnuts and whackjobs to deal with!
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 28, 2009 7:31 PM
It looks like Tennessee exempts Christian Science health facilities from all but sanitary and safety regulations:
Under the Health Code, Regulation of Health and Related Facilities
(a) Nothing in this part or the rules and regulations relative to medical treatment adopted pursuant to this part shall be construed as authorizing the supervision, regulation or control of the remedial care or treatment of patients or residents in, or over, any health care facility conducted for or by those who rely upon treatment by prayer through spiritual means in the practice of religion in accordance with the creed or tenets of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts.
(b) However, these institutions must comply with all rules and regulations relative to sanitation and safety as other institutions of similar category.
[Acts 1968, ch. 522, § 7; T.C.A., § 53-1318.]
They've got special status all over the country!
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 28, 2009 7:59 PM
Well, not exactly. :)
Posted by: SecularDad | August 28, 2009 8:02 PM
There is a Church of the Firstborn sect here in my local community. My wife even dated one in high school.
I knew they refused medical services, but they don't make the LDS connection common knowledge in the community. My wife says they also encourage marrying within the church (no divorce is allowed), so there is a lot of incest. If you want to stay in the church and marry someone from outside the church. If you do get a divorce, members of your family that are in the church are expected to break with you. No sharing meals and stuff like that.
I actually got in trouble at work for shooting my mouth off about the CotFb. I was bitching about them killing their kids when one of the guys got mad and told me he was a member. I had to apologize pretty damn quickly. The guy was known for calling human resources on people for stuff less than that. I don't think they'd have sided with me.
Posted by: SecularDad | August 28, 2009 8:27 PM
I found his obituary. Sure enough, most of his extended family is from Oklahoma. We are a hotbed for these folks.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=35221034
Posted by: tomh | August 28, 2009 8:30 PM
"They've got special status all over the country!" [Christian Scientists]
Exactly right. Although one of the tiniest sects in the country they are one of the most politically powerful. They keep paid lobbyists in every state, there are five members in the US Congress, (all Republican) who have a lot of influence in any religious issue that comes up. They've managed to achieve any number of privileges:
Christian Scientists have their own system of "nursing homes," staffed by unregistered Christian Science "nurses," which provide no medical care, only prayer. Services in these facilities, which are entirely religious in nature, are, in many cases, covered by Medicare/Medicaid, a privilege afforded to no other religious movement in the U.S.
Hundreds of private insurance companies reimburse Christian Scientists for treatment by "practitioners," who provide only prayer (no medication) for their patients; Christian Scientists are the only faith healers in history to be accorded this recognition.
As has been mentioned above, in many states Christian Scientists are exempt from laws protecting children from neglect, thanks to the lobbying of their Church. Of course, in many cases these laws spill over to protect other faith healers.
Posted by: Gustaf Sjöblom | August 28, 2009 8:41 PM
Cases like this highlight the very reason why we need secular law. Whenever there is a law in the books that allows for any special treatment for a religion we eventually have at least one tradgedy where those responsible get excused because of religion rather than mental illness.
These people would get away regardless because they are mentally ill. They really are mentally ill. Every single time someone is excused from a sentance because of religion rather than mental illness the justice system has failed in where it places blame.
Religion IS a mental illness, and the justice system has to treat it as such. Before we get to that point we have to blame the system.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 28, 2009 8:42 PM
Iowa's license to kill:
255.10 Religious belief -- denial of order.
The board of supervisors in its discretion may refuse to make such order in any case where the board finds the patient or the patient's parent, parents, or guardian are members of a religious denomination whose tenets preclude dependence on the practice of medicine or surgery and desire in good faith to rely upon the practice of their religion for relief from disease or disorder.
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/IACODE/2003SUPPLEMENT/255/10.html
Posted by: Sauceress | August 28, 2009 9:01 PM
Sorry..
Could be worse I guess..
http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/legal.htm
Posted by: susan | August 28, 2009 9:02 PM
Secular Dad (#137)—
I see from the obituary you posted that poor "Zakk was preceded in death by his sister Ashley Nicole Swezey...." I wonder under what circumstances she died?? Zakk's parents should be charged with manslaughter, minimally. For one thing, they are not Christian Scientists. For another, they killed their minor child.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 28, 2009 9:21 PM
Depressing to learn that Ted Kennedy supported the Christian Scientists with an amicus brief in a case from 2000.
"When Medicaid and Medicare were enacted over 30 years ago, Congress included a special provision granting a religious accommodation
for members of the church . . . . For 30 years, the Christian Science Church relied on Medicare and Medicaid benefits and built a health care system that assists thousands of
men and women."
He joined these amici:
Christian Legal Society; National *
Council of Churches of Christ in the *
USA; Christian Medical and Dental *
Society; The National Association of *
Evangelicals; General Council on *
Finance and Administration of the *
United Methodist Church; Presbyterian *
Church, (U.S.A.),
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/05/983521P.pdf
Posted by: JThompson | August 28, 2009 9:36 PM
Can't the FFRF/AA/ACLU challenge all these laws on separation?
It looks like a pretty clear government endorsement of one specific cult.
Off topic: Dunno if you've seen this yet, PZ, but http://pastoraaron.info/2009/08/11/scarlet-a-for-a-day/ was a Christian that went with the SSA into the creation museum. His reaction to his fellows is interesting.
Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 9:51 PM
@nick bobick
2. study of tasty bean paste
I try.
Posted by: Armand K. | August 28, 2009 10:14 PM
Somewhat related I think:
Looks like things didn't change much since Mark Twain wrote this in Christian Science about a hundred years ago...
Posted by: Irvin McWhorter | August 28, 2009 10:32 PM
I'm still trying to decrypt the word "Christian Science."
Are they trying to apply Christianity to the scientific method?
Posted by: tomh | August 28, 2009 10:49 PM
@ #141
"Oregon with a religious defense to homicide by abuse"
We reversed that 10 years ago. See #127
Posted by: red rabbit | August 28, 2009 11:53 PM
I figured this would show up here sooner:
richarddawkins.net/article,2103,Can-Atheists-Be-Parents,Time
This judge needs his head screwed back on. I would have thought it should go the other way around, given atheists are never ever going to pull shit like what Zakk's parents or the Neumanns or any of these others religious nutters who put their superstitions ahead of their kids' welfare.
Posted by: eandh99
|
August 29, 2009 12:33 AM
We have all seen that article before - read the dateline, it's from 1970.
Posted by: John Morales | August 29, 2009 12:44 AM
eandh99,
1. I hadn't.
2. Are you arguing this makes it somehow irrelevant?
Posted by: Blake | August 29, 2009 12:57 AM
uhhhh, yes. 40 year old minor news generally is pretty irrelevant, yeah.
Posted by: John Morales | August 29, 2009 1:05 AM
Blake, from the article:
Nothing to do with the issue of religiously-inspired laws (which this post addresses), and why they should be repealed?
Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
Posted by: Michael | August 29, 2009 1:34 AM
As it was mentioned before there are no problems to go to the doctors at all. It is choice of individual which never was taken away. When our daughter was 13 she had chosen to go to the doctor and even to the hospital. When nothing was found and she was not able to breath with a temperature so high at night it was a prayer of a Christian Science Practitioner which saved her life. In 5-7 hours from each nostril went out two pieces of substance. It was demonstration of bloodless and without any pain surgery which medical authority even could not fund out. IF they did it would be only one method - to make a surgery. Anyway it is a demonstration and decision of every one to love his own child or himself. So let's not judge but love more. Also bless God that nearly every one here never experienced thousands mistakes by the doctors. So Christian Science respect doctors and do use them if they cannot demonstrate God's power themselves. Let's love each other more without judging!
Posted by: Jicklet | August 29, 2009 2:30 AM
"I'm still trying to decrypt the word "Christian Science."
Are they trying to apply Christianity to the scientific method?"
The founder of Christian Science (Mary Baker Eddy) had no scientific training whatsoever; it has no relation to the scientific method. (She was a remarkable woman in many ways -- the first woman to found a newspaper, for example).
"Hot damn, where are they getting the money? I thought the Christian Monitor organization was pretty much broke and hanging by a thread."
They encourage members to leave their wealth to the Church, rather than their families. In my lifetime, family members who have passed on have left nearly 2 million dollars total to the church.
I am *so* glad that only one of my parents was a Christian Scientist; I went to church but also got medical care. When I was 9, and my parents were out of the country, I got strep; by the time they came back and took me to the doctor, I had scarlett fever.
Posted by: Cowcakes | August 29, 2009 3:36 AM
I too suffered acute appendicitis as a child. A suitable punishment for the parents and other members of this murderous uncaring cult would be drawing and quartering. It may give them an appreciation of the pain that is felt as your appendix rapidly move towards rupturing. It should also make them happy as they believe they would go to join their creator. We all know better but at least they wouldn't be able to subject anybody else to such horrors.
Posted by: Armand K. | August 29, 2009 3:51 AM
@Irvin McWhorter #147
Not "apply to". "Be." They simply declare Christianity to be The scientific method and prayer The only truly effective cure.
@Michael #154
Bollocks and shameless lies.
Oh, by the way: when making up quotes in support of your "methods" try at least not to attribute them to, respectively the guy who said the Judeo-Christian Bible is a collection of pretty childish stories and that he doesn't believe in a personal god "who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings" (Einstein)
Nor use a dubious affirmation attributed to the guy who devoted a whole book to exposing Christian "Science's" lies and the imposture of its founder.
For the latter one, the ironny is I've just provided a few short quotations at reply #146, along with a link to the whole book. But of course, you're applying the same cherry-picking most Christian fundamentalists and apologetics use by citing the only one of Mark Twain's (alleged) phrases that apparently endorses Christian "Science". A phrase that's at best an ironic response to Paine's enthusiasm vis à vis of CS, so very much in the style of the grand master of satire. (But then again, this goes along so well with all fundamentalists quoting Einstein's metaphor about God not playing dice to make it seem like he was a fervent believer---Christian, nonetheless!)
Posted by: Armand K. | August 29, 2009 4:21 AM
Errata for #157
2nd paragraph in response to Michael (#154): "respectively" has, of course, no place in the text. (That's what you get when changing phrasing in the middle of the sentence.)
Also, I forgot to link the source. The quotes I was referring to are (from Michael's website, at http://www.christian-healing-prayer.net/resources.htm ):
This is a third-hand account of what someone wrote that someone else said he heard a librarian say that Einstein said(!). Not even anecdotical--it's the anecdote of an anecdote about a, presumably, pure lie (feel free to shuffle "lie" and "anecdote" around as you please). How comfy that the biography was published after Twain's death by someone apparently impervious to satire when it comes to his own faith!
Posted by: Alan C | August 29, 2009 4:55 AM
Yes, another one to add to my 'This is fucking stupid' file. The flagrant stupidity of those parents burns my mind. It reminded me of a case here with a Vegan couple insisting on a vegan diet for their infant who, sadly, died from malnutrition as a result.
I've generally had it with P.C. so I'm calling this batshit crazy as I see it. It's up there with judges pandering to 'cultural sensitivity' when it comes to spousal abuse [Muslim].
Posted by: Science rocks | August 29, 2009 5:49 AM
I too have had problems with my stomach though it wasn't the appendix, it was an intestinal invagination but it felt pretty bad anyway. I can hardly imagine what it would be like if people would have shut off their brains and just started praying instead of, you know, sending me to the hospital so they could perform the surgery - at no cost for me, I might add.
Posted by: Michael | August 29, 2009 6:59 AM
I'm a different Michael, an atheist. I'm not if all those quotes are true about Einstein and Christian Science, but Issacson's excellent recent biography of Einstein only mentions one connection between him and Christian science, the fact that his first grandson Klaus died at age 5 when his parents relied on Christian Science to heal him.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | August 29, 2009 8:06 AM
Most people in USA that claim religious belief are as atheist as I am (and I am 100% true-blue!).
Oh sure they think they believe and they say they believe and they want to believe and they want the perks of association that society confers on conformity and on organized believing BUT -- ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
Most people when the chips are down rely and trust god like I do: like a fantasy that doesn't really exist! And when they hear about some people that really take the believe to the wire (like in the subject at hand) they say along with us: "man they are nuts!"
My feeling: thirty percent (30%) of us are so RWA we actually cannot see reality when it conflicts with a belief and authority, and also being RWA we need structure, leaders, and simple analysis and solutions that fortify prejudices (facts be damned).
Then some percent of the non-RWA are so tangled in indoctrination and a closed culture where RWAs rule (like in the South and some places elsewhere) that to challenge the status quo is unthinkable (loss of family, friends, heritage, cultural identity, etc.) - more comfortable to go along and convince oneself all is as it is preached and practiced.
The rest of us are a mixed bag of loose believers and/or social/cultural religious, or non-religious, or actual "self described!" atheists.
The only way to break the stranglehold of religion is to break the stranglehold of the RWAs. Nationally - like for president - we can do it just by voting in high numbers and with our heads (60% EVs voting about assures a sane result given sane choice).
But locally very difficult. Pockets are mostly RWAs, and even if not, voter apathy and laziness (like for school board elections)come into play. Remember RWAs will almost always vote. They are always fired up and ready to bear arms for their cause.
Until regional areas are RWA diluted as the South is starting to be by Northern migration, and non-RWAs vote whenever there is a vote, we are subject to Senators and other reps that will carry the RWA flag and exploit us all - and religion and fear of things thought to be anti-religious, are their main tools of choice to control and use the sheeple.
Posted by: Cheesis K | August 29, 2009 11:10 AM
I hope everyone who can afford it is a member of or will join FFRF or AA or some other church-state separationist org.
FFRF seems very energetic in raising lawsuits as they can, given their small but growing membership. And they send you a very nicely executed and heartwarming newspaper every month.
Sometimes though when you look at how the odds (and the SOTUS) are stacked against us, I think maybe it's better to attack the problem at its very roots. Part of this is certainly to teach critical thinking (as per a recent post) but another generally neglected part is directly attacking the believability of Christianity itself. In the latter we are lucky in that it's possible to know it was made up because the authors of it wanted us to know it. They put clues in the gospels and they provided the work of Josephus as a key to decoding it.
I know this sounds crazy but if you look into it a little bit you can see it simply must be true, for many separate reasons. First, there are many compelling literary parallels between events in Josephus' Jewish War which describes Titus Flavius' Judean campaign crushing the First Jewish Rebellion, which culminated in the encirclement of Jerusalem and the dismantling (stone on stone, exactly as Jesus "prophesied") of the temple. Many of the events of Jesus' ministry are satirical depictions of major battles of Titus' campaign. For example, "fishers of men" refers to the sea battle at the lake of Galilee where according to Josephus the rebels where so thick in the water that they could be speared like fish. Also the path taken by Jesus parallels that of Titus. This is very unlikely to be accidental, but for me it is the compellingness of the literary parallels that alone is enough to clinch it. Read about Cannibal Mary in Josephus and then tell me what can explain what she says upon roasting (as required for passover!) her own baby, other than that it is a setup for the cruel and vicious joke of Jesus as the passover lamb.
Anyhow the main reason I wanted to post on this today is because I just found a new place where the whole book laying this out can be downloaded for free. It used to be downloadable from scribd free but now they want $5. But some guerilla (not me) has put the same file as used to be free on scribd, that appears to be made from the original printer's file, up on another site. It's a fairly small download so I recommend you grab it while you can and you can read it whenever you see fit.
I also think the author will be better served in the end if more people are simply aware of what he has done. He has other books in the pipeline, I understand, on the origins of the rest of the NT, for one thing. The Pauline literature has to be a forgery also, of course, for the CM thesis to be true. I believe this is part of the next book. It was commissioned by Titus' brother, Domitian, aka "The Holy Ghost".
So here is the place to download it free. I advise grabbing it while you can and reading it later when you have time if not now.
http://www.esnips.com/doc/b67761f4-ecd2-423a-93a0-0ff2b9eb6149/Joseph-Atwill---Caesars-Messiah---The-Roman-Conspiracy-to-Invent-Jesus
Also, the link through my alias here gets you to the scribd download if you want Joe Atwill to get his richly deserved $5. I would like to see him do well but I also think the importance of this idea transcends any individual commercial interest. It is a matter of survival of our culture and freedom, if not our and many other species.
Posted by: Armand K. | August 29, 2009 3:24 PM
@Cheesis K #164
I'm sure others, too, will agree that this is the wrong place to spam some dubious conspirationist self-published anti-Semite book.
Posted by: Ian Adams | August 29, 2009 6:34 PM
I'm going to bring this up at the next Seattle Atheists meeting. Can anyone find any other laws in Washington State that are Christian Science-specific?
Posted by: Cheesis K | August 29, 2009 7:58 PM
Armand K, I understand people probably area feeling that way but I feel it's a very important work to us who think the world would be better without superstition and so I am willing to embarass myself with some promotion of it.
If PZ wants to ban me then so be it, but it is my intention to raise awareness of this idea or at least attempt to. I think it should be self-evidently true to a substantial proportion of people that take the time to actually read what the author has to say, that the thesis of the book is correct. It is very self-contained and easy to follow, I think especially by people who have some science and math background (unfortunately the very same people who (like me) aren't ordinarily interested in this kind of thing.) This is particularly important, as the evidence seems to be invisible to most bible scholars who simply cannot seem to consider that a religion could arise as a deliberate fraud. But in our modern experience, that is certainly how at least two religions, Mormonism and Scientology, arose. I don't see any reason why it can't be at least considered that other longer-standing religions arose also cynically.
I am not reusing posts here and not posting that many or often. I try to mention something different each time I bring it up, and I will mostly only raise it when it relates to the topic somehow. Today I stretched a little because I just happened to discover that the whole book is out there again for free. I know paying for it, just the hassle if not the cash (5$) is too much of a bother for a lot of people.
It was originally a self-published book, it's true, but it was published legitimately by Ulysees in 2005. It is my understanding that it had backing of Robert Eisenmann who wrote James Brother of Jesus which is a fairly mainstream book. Also it has now been published in Germany by Ulstein I think it is.
If you look into it further you'll find the book is not anti-Semitic in the least. Rather the opposite, I would say, in that it explains how the anti-Semitic leaning found in Christianity originated as part of the main intent of the religion.
It's unfortunate that the book contains the word conspiracy in the title. My understanding is that the publisher put it in to sell more books, at no request from the author. The original (self-published) book by Atwill had the title as "The Roman Origins of Christianity". I don't think it describes a proper conspiracy at all. Rather, it is more of an act of government. There was no particular secrecy involved or needed.
Thanks for responding and letting me know your thoughts.
Posted by: JediBear | August 29, 2009 8:29 PM
As a resident of Washington State, I thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will speak to my representatives. A group of us may need to get together and consider a ballot initiative.
Posted by: JediBear | August 29, 2009 10:08 PM
It should be noted that the Washington State exemption is not applicable in this case because:
1) No Christian Scientists are in evidence.
2) The Washington State exemption applies only to cases tried under the state's Mistreatment/Abandonment statutes and not to either state or federal law regarding creiminally negligent homicide.
Posted by: anthonzi
|
August 29, 2009 10:34 PM
It would be nice if you posted the revision number for wikipedia next time. Very useful to see who is editting what.
Posted by: Mira | August 30, 2009 12:05 AM
Stupidity due to religion should be illegal - case in point.
Posted by: John Morales | August 30, 2009 1:57 AM
Cheesis K: It [conspiracy theory book] was originally a self-published book, it's true, but it was published legitimately by Ulysees in 2005.
Is that supposed to add credibility?
About Ulysees Press:
Heh. I think you're posting this on the wrong blog...
Posted by: Japhet | August 30, 2009 4:25 AM
@natalie
From what I hear, the 70's were a different period for the CS church than the 90's when I was growing up. Most people I knew in my church went to the doctor when they had a serious medical issue. They wore glasses when they needed them and visited the dentist regularly.
Sure there were a couple of nutters who refused to eat chocolate or drink coffee because they were considered stimulants but most of the other members laughed at those guys.
I even attended Principia (the CS college) and I found most folks to be fairly well-adjusted.
The one thing that really bugged me about growing up with CS was everyone talking about how they could hear God talking to them. I always wondered why I didn't but it wasn't until I got into philosophy during uni that I finally understood where they thought they were coming from.
Posted by: Becca | August 30, 2009 11:11 AM
Another CS-raised athiest.
I had about the same experience as Japhet- I heard that if you're in too much pain to think, you're not going to be able to think through what's necessary to heal. I broke my arm when I was three- not an issue, went to a doctor, had it set. I just never had any immunizations until I went off to collage and my family had drifted towards a non-religious stance and was unable to get the exemption. And while my grandmother did die of CS-related stupidity, it was because she didn't know that she should say something about taking blood thinners before going into surgery.
I also went to Principia, but for middle school- and while the college might be mellow, the other parts of that school contain the hard-core CSists, the ones that force anyone there to maintain the no-drug rule (under any conditions) and spit on homosexuals. (which I never understood their opposition to, I mean, when the physical realm doesn't really exist, why do the genitals of the person you're having non-existent sex with matter?)
I'll admit, though, I get a tad uneasy when CS gets brought up these days. Denying proper medical care is child abuse, that I agree with. It just means accusing my parents of child abuse.
Posted by: Cheesis K | August 30, 2009 11:39 AM
John Morales, seems to me it's not to be expected that a mainstream publisher today would put out a book that argues Christianity is a cynical lie, even if it is true. So who is the publisher is a mere distraction. I hope people will evaluate Atwill's thesis based on its merits, not on who published it. Also, I hope they will take a little time assessing it before they will denounce it as nonsense.
If there is something in particular you can state that makes it obviously wrong I'd be interested to hear of it, and if I can't refute it based on what I already know I will pursue it further. In my experience, most of the reasons claimed it certainly can't be true are based on misconceptions, such as the example I provided previously that it's a certainty the Pauline literature was written in the 50s CE.
I'm posting on this blog for a couple of different reasons. One is because the people who I think can appreciate this are people who have some real science and math training and experience. I'm convinced that someone with understanding of how to determine how much one gene sequence is related to another is in a very good position to see that the relationship between Josephus and the gospels, or amongst the gospels themselves, is too well-tuned to have arisen by accident. It's rather parallel to the intellligent design versus evolution argument, except in this case, there is no natural selection and we are only talking about whether it's a deliberately made up story or based on actual history. The fact that it is structured the way it is reveals not only that it was made up, but that the people that made it up wanted this fact to appreciated by the intelligentsia of the time and by posterity. This seems to be beyond consideration by the bible scholars.
The second reason I decided to post here is PZ himself. Of the prominent and public atheists I have to say that he seems the most unlikely to pull punches. If he gets convinced that the gospels are a made up Roman vicious joke designed to persecute the Jews, he's not going to be afraid to say so, and then the idea will get a better airing out than it has to date.
I think we're overlooking a very powerful tool for fighting irrationality and theocracy, generationally. I don't expect many seriously believing adult Christians are going to deconvert based on it, but for young people trying to form a coherent opinion in a world rife with misinformation, it could be a very important tidbit.
Unfortunately it's no longer possible to buy the book from amazon, but they still have the page with many reader reviews. It was reading these reviews that got me interested, originally. I was only searching for Julius Caesar's War Diaries after watching the Rome series on HBO, when I stumbled across it. Then when I got it it sat on the shelf for half a year. But when I started reading it, I was truly astounded. I never knew Caesar Titus exactly "fulfilled" Jesus' ostensible prophecies, exactly to the letter and precisely on schedule. How can that not be significant? A later insertion might be plausible but there is so much more to tell us that's not what happened. The Son of Man prophecy, and the razing of the temple, are central to the story. When viewed properly, even the many contradictions amongst the gospels can be seen as deliberate and meaningful.
http://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Messiah-Conspiracy-Invent-Second/dp/1569754578
Posted by: Sara | August 30, 2009 12:45 PM
Funny, that. Right after I spent several hours reading through the What's the Harm entries.
http://whatstheharm.net/faithhealing.html
Posted by: Garrett | August 30, 2009 5:28 PM
I, too, was raised in Christian Science. I'd like to echo the thoughts expressed by Japhet (#55) and Alden (comment #58). I went to Principia from Acorn (pre-preschool) all the way through high school. Part of the reason I didn't go to the college was that I was losing faith. I'm happy to report that I'm now an atheist.
I'd like to think most CS people aren't as nutty as the folks belonging to this Church of the First Born and some of the other wacko cults.
When someone at a CS summer camp got measles one year that I was there, those of us who had never had measles were forced to go home. So, medical personnel must have been informed. When I got strep throat and possibly scarlet fever a few years later, my mom got so worried that I ended up taking some medicine. My parents and I made regular dentist visits. We drank caffeine, but no alcohol.
My dad, still a CS, admitted to me about 10 years ago that he sometimes will take an Advil (he said something like, "you need to be able to concentrate enough to pray and think clearly"). I sure wish I had known that sooner, because I suffered some nasty headaches as a kid. I kept going to church until college (and even beyond when I was home visiting). But I had seen the light and haven't been in quite a long time. I'm now 31 and religion gives me the willies. Don't tell my folks I said that. :)
Posted by: Pwnch | August 31, 2009 3:51 AM
Funny story, I graduated from Preble High school on 6/6/06. We were given this date from the East High School where I live. And simply because their mascot was a "Red Devil" some parents thought it unwise to graduate on the fabulous date of 6/6/06. So, us Preble Hornets received the blessing.
Public Schools: F
Religious Schools: F-
Home School: S (scary, but not entirely an F)
Self Education: A+
Posted by: Daeva | September 4, 2009 12:19 AM
Sorry , PZ , as a fellow Washingtonian I'll do my best to protest against this atrocity, and any further ones that might bring up. I'm very disappointed in Washington for various things , along with still being one of the states that do not allow gay marriages, c'mon!
Posted by: Darren
|
October 4, 2009 8:30 PM
Your post does a serious injustice to a church and your post reviewers. The information you have an the "Church of the Firstborn" is in serious error. The group you have referred to by pasting a website is NOT the same group! How do I know? Because I am a member of the Church of the Firstborn that believes in faith healing, and we do not have a website. The group you have referred to is a recently developed non denominational church, not related to either us, or the mormon sect with the same name. Obviously your opinion is against us, and it is yours to hold, but you really owe the holder of that website an apology!
Posted by: bobbie | November 11, 2009 2:03 AM
I agree that Christian Scientists are off base, but I know that the Church of the First Born is a solid Christian church. They believe that the Bible is the Word of God. The Church of the First Born is NOT a cult, but a Bible believing church. They have a program on Channel l7, out of S. Yarmouth, MA. If you check that out, you will see that they are not to be lumped in with cults.
Posted by: charity5
|
May 31, 2011 8:25 AM
Shame on Washington?? Shame on you!! You all scream about rights and use freedom to conduct your experiments (might I add many that HARM PEOPLE YES I SAID IT and ANIMALS TOO, thinking that to hurt a few or even cause death to some is a small sacrafice in order to heal with medication a few!!) Can you say Hypocrite!!??? Because what your saying is although you have a right to freedom in this country, those who believe in the power of prayer or faith healing do not.. why? because our beliefs differ from yours.. WELL SHAME ON YOU!! It is so easy to write about the few who have lost life, but you never write of the many who are saved, so many miracles and so many healed of the same stated diseases!! And yes I HAVE SEEN with my own eyes the power of God, I have been blessed and healed by God myself. Shame on your for so easily trying to rip Us of Our Freedom in this country while you yourself willingly and knowingly CAUSE DEATH in A MUCH WIDER and GREATER NUMBERS then a few people who still believe in God and the power of prayer. At least we have faith in something other then the Almighty dollar and making a name for ourself.. nuff said! (Oh I am sure you will lots to say but for those who do not know what I am talking about, research how many men, children and women die each year during trial experiments on new drugs.. and how many people lose their life due to neglehence in the hospitals, distributing wrong medications and/or preforming unnessessary surgeries!!! I DARE YOU TO GET THOSE FACTS AND WEIGH THEM AGAINST the faith believing... Your numbers are GREATLY HIGHER and YET you judge!!) Again SHAME ON YOU@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: John Morales
|
May 31, 2011 8:30 AM
charity5, not enough exclamation marks for me to take you seriously.
Try harder.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 31, 2011 8:31 AM
Thank you for the vivid demonstration that you wackos are totally nuts, Charity.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
May 31, 2011 8:42 AM
Way to early in the morning for that much crazy.