Religious Laws Trump Civil Laws? Part II

On June 13, I referenced the conflict in Israel between the ultra-Orthodox Jews who believe that God's laws, as they understand and apply them, trump any civil laws. That conflict was about parking cars and driving on the Sabbath.

In the US, there have been cases of children who died because their parents followed their religious beliefs and prayed for healing rather than seek medical treatment. On June 23, 2009, in one such case in Oregon, a jury essentially acquitted a couple whose 15 month old died.

Here are two reactions to this case to generate some thought.

The first can be found on the site, Religious News Service, and is an interview with a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Shawn Francis Peters, who specializes in questions about faith healing. The interview was conducted by Lindsay Perra.

Q: What does the verdict say about the public perception of faith-healing?
A: Americans aren’t necessarily hostile to the concept of faith healing. In fact, there is openness to its possibilities. The trial may have been less about faith-healing and more about the way we view the responsibilities of parents. There was a sense among jurors that the parents were doing what they thought was right. As a society, we have to give parents the latitude to do that.

Q: So religious law supersedes civil law?
A: It was more that the jury just did not see a clear intent to harm the child or an overwhelming evidence of negligence. The jury never really got beyond the sense that the parents did not try to hurt the child, but in fact, did what they thought was right. Juries typically struggle with that and then go the other way.

Q: Are there constitutional protections that protect parents who fail to provide medical treatment for their children?
A: There really aren’t outright protections for these kinds of practices. There is certainly a First Amendment right for the free exercise of religion. But, in the realm of child health, it’s pretty clear that the state interest is in helping the health and welfare of the child. That takes precedence over the parent’s right of the free practice of religion. Some state laws have exemptions for faith-healing practices.

The second is a piece written by Susan Nielsen for The Oregonian.

We also should keep asking the questions that bedevil juries in faith-healing cases: Is it ever OK to seriously harm your child in the name of religion? If so, which religion? Other states that struggle with these questions tend to realize that holding citizens to different criminal standards, based on their religious beliefs rather than their conduct, leads to messy laws, messy trials, unhappy juries and more dead kids.

The Worthingtons, who shun modern medicine in favor of faith healing, stood trial last month on charges of second-degree manslaughter and criminal mistreatment for the 2008 death of their 15-month-old daughter, Ava. Prosecutors said the couple let the child die of pneumonia and a blood infection, complicated by an untreated cyst on her neck that affected her breathing. . . .

The Supreme Court correctly holds that the state must give great deference to parents. The ability to raise children according to one's beliefs and direct their medical care is a matter of fundamental liberty, deeply rooted in our laws and culture.

Yet these rights are not absolute. Beliefs are held sacred but conduct is not, and the government can intervene if parents endanger their children. As the high court famously ruled more than 60 years ago, "Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children."

Do you believe that religious beliefs should trump any civil law?