The part that got my ire up was the pastor testifying that he believed mental illness was caused by possession and that only God could cure it.

Maybe that explains why there is such a enormously high percentage of religious nutjobs.

From what I’ve read, the deadlock seems to be due to the jurors not being able to decide between prison or sending her to a mental hospital.  One of the alternate jurors said that they wanted to send her to the mental hospital but were afraid she’d be released after a short time. 

There are allegations that the husband could have done more to prevent the murder.

For obvious reasons, it is very difficult to give a dispassionate and coherent response. I remember shaking with anger when that story first broke.

First and foremost, what happened to the child was horrible and almost certainly preventable, which makes it even worse.

Second, mental illness sucks big-time. The effects range from a debilitating illness to making the afflicted a true danger to society.

Third, I can’t recall a single case of similar gravity where religion doesn’t factor in. There appears to be a correlation between a religious fundamentalist environment, particularly the social isolation and monoculture and mental illness. I will leave up to somebody more qualified than I am to discuss causation. Are fundamentalists more at risk of mental illness, does mental illness make them seek out such an environment, or is there a confluence of both?

Fourth, does it matter what a jury decides? I would guess and hope that the woman will at least spend the rest of her days in a psych ward, whether she is executed, locked away in a prison or a mental institute is largely a non-issue as long as she’s not again in a position to be a danger to society.

Fifth, anytime somebody snaps, family, friends, neighbors, and collegues universally join in the “who could have known” chorus. As unviversally, once one scratches the surface of this front, it is readily apparent that everybody could have known and many did indeed know, but were in some kind of denial.

Sixth, the pastor. There are significant legal and other issues at stake.

Concerning the legal issues, there are almost certainly angles of attack I can’t even conceive of.

What’s the case law regarding people giving bad advice? If they are in a position of unusual trust?

If the pastor knew enough to recognize the woman as mentally ill, but willfully neglected to make her seek out proper medical care and instead resorted to religious quackery (put bluntly), then one could argue that he practiced medicine without a proper license. Since such an alleged malpractice lead to a death, the pastor should be judged complicit in it.

I haven’t even bothered to check, but the pastor is certainly a member of some Christian denomonination, sect, or whatever. A question that comes to my mind is if the prosecution would have behaved differently had the priest been a member of some fringe religion or secular sect. I do wonder, that’s all.

The core issue regarding the priest that I see is what, if any, special protection should be awarded to priests? I’m not aware that being a priest, with an active ministry or not, is regulated in any way. It’s inconceivable that such could be the case, anyway. When the actions, proclamations, and teachings of a Church or individual priests trespass on non-religious turf, like public-health or medical issues, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to hold them to the same standards as other practicioners of that field are.

Another way to look at the same picture: Should it be possible to sue priests for mal-ministry? Should they be forced to carry insurance for such an eventuality, much like medical practicioners are? Should priests be legally exempt from the consequences of giving bad advice?

Oh, and the obligatory disclosure: Technically, I am a properly ordained minister of an agnostic church. Not that I’d have or want an active ministry.

Well, it would seem to me (I could be wrong) that if the person had been apparent in her inability to make decisions for herself or was otherwise in the trust of the person giving her advice, that that person may be charged with neglectful care. Bad advice between two competent people, as far as I know, is not a crime. It is generally assumed that children are in such trust, and typically, the severely mentally ill.

Pastors are regularly in the practice of offering counsel to people, and it’s difficult to say that anyone, much less someone in particular, who comes to the pastor is incapable of their own care and not simply at conflict with decisions that need to be made. In my improfessional opinion, the pastor is guilty of neglect, regardless of his ignorance (which he can always claim). The bottom line is, if she was unfit to stand trial, she was incompetent enough to be at the mercy of her advisors. Just show that the mental condition she’s currently in she was in at the time she sought advice from the pastor. The pastors public statements condemn his position pretty solidly, too.

If the pastor gets charged with doing something illegal what would keep this from becoming the precedent case for the state to accept a materialist first philosophy and rest the care of all children from their religious parents?  It would become illegal to be apart of the Christian Science religion.  Pentecostal Christians would nearly cease to exist because of the great emphasis on spiritual causation.  How many other religions would be affected?  The materialist nature of the state(if this became a precedent) would come in direct conflict with freedom of religion.  What happens then?

Theo, the question at hand is straightforward: Can a priest of any arbitrary religion be held legally liable by secular law for the ramifications arising from the exercise of ecclesiastical rights or performance of such duties, provided they comply with the laws, regulations, standard operating procedures, or whatnot of the priest’s religion?

If this is too tedious to parse, where does secular law end and *any* ecclesiastical law begin and vice versa? Or: Should priests get a free ride as long as their churches see fit?

How do you answer?

I know what the question is.  I just didn’t directly pose it.  My question, which I think is broader than how you word yours, is should the state ever be allowed to have a foundational philosophy and create laws based on it?  The ontology of the state will certainly affect the moral values upheld in its laws.  So what ontology if any should the state side with?  Can the state not choose between a material or immaterial ontology as a basis for laws?  Should the state be allowed to force people to use and accept current medical prescriptions and practices if it conflicts with the individual’s ontological beliefs?  This promises to be an interesting discussion.

It is a common complaint among pastors that no one is honest with them.  Everyone wants to please the pastor.  People seeing a pastor for any reason make an unusual effort to tell the pastor what they think he wants to hear. 

Granted this pastor’s take on mental illness is way off but he may never have seen any signs of it at all.

I know what the question is.  I just didn’t directly pose it.

So how do you answer?

Granted this pastor’s take on mental illness is way off but he may never have seen any signs of it at all.

This comes back to what role he actually played. Did he indeed counsel the family on the mother’s mental health? Did the family see him for unrelated reasons? If the court transcripts are publically available, somebody with the stomach to read them in depth can probably answer these questions.

As a general observation, while calamities of this kind are thankfully rare, they are not unheard of, either. I suspect that each of these events leaves the more caring people trapped in a private hell - as far as I know, the signs and portents are often in plain sight for everyone to see, but are ignored because few people are willing or capable to consider that somebody else may actually do the unthinkable.

In my opinion, keeping a mentally ill person from receiving treatment is almost a worse crime than murder. I’m not saying the pastor is guilty it, but if so, one would hope that his purported afterlife would be filled with burning questions…

In fundy churches women really don’t get to talk much except among themselves.  If they grow up in the church they have decades of practice at hiding their feelings and thoughts from men.  Add this to the well-known dishonesty of church members when talking to their pastors and I’m just saying that no matter what the roles were, the pastor may not have had a prayer of ever learning what was going on in this woman’s head.

Of course if we find out she did open up to him and all he did was heap guilt on her and tell her to pray more, get the rope!

Of course if we find out she did open up to him and all he did was heap guilt on her and tell her to pray more, get the rope!

Fair enough.

It appears my entry could have used a bit more research as the issue won’t arise in this case. The preacher is claiming to hardly know the family.

Davidson said he hardly knew the family, although John Schlosser testified earlier that Davidson was the first person he called after his wife told him what she had done.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/tv/stories/wfaa060215_lj_schlosser.2d425e58.html

(Reg required)

Whether I believe Davidson on this point or not, it does not appear that there is anything to indicate that the family was involved in counseling.

As to the broader question, I will use Elwed’s as it is in English: Can a priest of any arbitrary religion be held legally liable by secular law for the ramifications arising from the exercise of ecclesiastical rights or performance of such duties, provided they comply with the laws, regulations, standard operating procedures, or whatnot of the priest’s religion?

The answer is no, but that is qualified.  In Texas, where this incident took place, suit may be brought against the church and the counselor, marriage, family or otherwise, not for providing spiritual services, bur for holding themselves out to provide counseling services and failing to provide counseling services that a reasonable counselor would provide.  See Sanders v. Casa View Baptist Church, 134 F3d 331 (5th Cir. 1998)

The more perplexing problem is that the case law is not consistent from state to state.  Some states have barred similar law suits.  If you want a fuller view of the subject here is an article that will bring you up to speed.  http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3968/is_200001/ai_n8884548

Theo, I’m a big suporter of 1st Amendment rights, however, many, many of these quacks are holding themsleves at as offering services that were considered primarily secular services.  When they do that, their abject failure to provide any meaningful service, and what I consider to be the nearly criminal disservice that they provide, needs to be rectified.

Are fundamentalists more at risk of mental illness, does mental illness make them seek out such an environment, or is there a confluence of both? - elwedriddsche

Excellent question, if you ever find the answer let me know. I come from a family that is steeped in religious fervor, from my four ordained minister cousins to my aunt who had an exorcism (yes, an actual exorcism) performed on her out of control child. The one thing I notice is that they slowly surround themselves only with those who support their views and lose touch with anyone who has a contrary view. I imagine that continuous reinforcement of a singular belief is little different from actual brainwashing. Roughly half of the family members that are fundamentalists (one was actually a Michigan delegate for Pat Robertson ) have had what I can describe only as long standing emotional issues.

I think that people with mental illnesses gravitate toward those who are either a) like them or b) unconditionally accepting of them and since religion tends to accept anyone (as long as they aren’t homosexual) crazies tend to get caught in their gravitational field. If you want a good example of crazy and religious fundamentalism see godhatesfags.com and revel in the fine upstanding folk at the Westboro Baptist Church. I imagine they not only embrace crazy, they produce it as well.

according to http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13670/Counselor--Schlosser-feared-end-of-days
god told her to do it. Also “She would see blood on the street. The blood would turn into apostles” and the apostles told Ms. Schlosser: “It’s the end of days. Be ready.”

Couldn’t the husband be neglectful here also? He heard her say she wanted to give the daughter to God. Any reasonable person would seek measures to protect their children, such as not leaving them home alone together. I think the Andrea Yates’ husband was in the same boat there too. At what point should the spouse who also failed to seek aide be held accountable?

Not to be the voice of defending people who aren’t defensible, but many people fail to act until it is too late, because, well, “This can’t be happening”.  People die of cancer all the time because of denial, for instance.

Surely somebody is to blame for this!  I pick religion generally as supernaturalism is a convenient hiding-place for irrationality.  Something doesn’t seem right, so you sieze upon a ready-built ontology that promises to straighten everything out in the end no matter how long it takes. 

Lacking such a fallback, Rationalism is forced to accept that sometimes the situation can’t be straightened out and simply requires a very unpleasant intervention.

elwed, I don’t know what I think exactly on the issue.  I think it is an incredibly touchy subject and must be dealt with very carefully.  I think the outcome can only be lose-lose.  Either some religious freedom is repressed in the name of safety, or human safety is sacrificed in the name of religious freedom.  I value both so it is hard to choose.  I know I can think of extreme situations where I would want human safety to win out, but with my limited knowledge of even this situation I’m not sure if I would count this as an extreme situation.

I have to draw a distinction between valuing religious freedom and valuing religion. 

Theo, just curious - what would be an extreme situation? 

Theo,

I think it is an incredibly touchy subject and must be dealt with very carefully.

It’s not a touchy subject for me, though.

I think the outcome can only be lose-lose.

I disagree.

Either some religious freedom is repressed in the name of safety, or human safety is sacrificed in the name of religious freedom.

And you are conflicted about this?

It’s very simple. You are free to pick and chose whatever religious beliefs tickle your fancy. You’re into involuntary human sacrifice? Eating babies? No problem. The second that acting out on your religious beliefs infringes on limb, life, liberty, rights, or whatnot of a non-consenting or coerced person, you have the freedom to face up to and including a lynch mob.

I value both so it is hard to choose.  I know I can think of extreme situations where I would want human safety to win out, but with my limited knowledge of even this situation I’m not sure if I would count this as an extreme situation.

I’ll second DOF. What would be an extreme situation where human safety should win out and what do you consider a non-extreme situation where it shouldn’t?

To state the obvious, I’m not giving anybody leave to endanger my and my family’s safety.

DOF:
what would be an extreme situation?

elwed:
You’re into involuntary human sacrifice? Eating babies?

Those are good examples of extreme situations I wouldn’t approve of.

elwed:
It’s not a touchy subject for me, though.

Of course not because you are the atheist materialist with the power.  The state could care less about you.  You are perfectly content to give all problems a material cause and material remedy. You are not the religious person that now has the state incredibly wary of him, for believing there is more to existence than chemical and physical reactions.

elwed:
And you are conflicted about this?

Have you come up with the perfect balance between the state protecting us against terrorism and still allowing us to keep our civil liberties?  This is a similar conflict.

elwed:
The second that acting out on your religious beliefs infringes on limb, life, liberty, rights, or whatnot of a non-consenting or coerced person, you have the freedom to face up to and including a lynch mob.

But which non-consenting or coerced persons is it an infringement on?

I’m not giving anybody leave to endanger my and my family’s safety.

I wouldn’t either.  But should parents be able to determine what healthcare they choose to practice for themselves and their families?  Shouldn’t I be allowed NOT to take medicine or get psychiatric help if I’m depressed or suicidal because I believe the cause of the depression transcends the material world?  If I were a parent responsible for a child should I be required to give my child medication to deal with ADHD?

You are not the religious person that now has the state incredibly wary of him, for believing there is more to existence than chemical and physical reactions.

Horse apples.  The state is hardly wary of the religious - witness tax exemptions, the right to limit their kids’ educations based on old legends, ‘faith-based funding’, the list goes on and on.  Religion practically gets a free pass.

Do children have to die for it to be an ‘extreme situation?  Or is there a line before that?

What is with these wacky ultra religious women killing their kids and doing these horrid things to them ?  Then when its over they all go for the insanity plea.  Living here in the midwest we must hear of at least one of these incidents weekly and each is more horrific than the next.  Going back over a number of them one common denominator is that they are all out of the “fundamentalists” type groups.. what is in their teachings that turns people into these nutball freaks who must kill their kids !!!  People up the road from us at ‘the other house” in another state were also sinners from Chicago that did the whole “found God” joined one of these bizaar fundamentalists groups up in the middle of bumblefark and their oldest child, a son almost died from a known disease that is quite treatable if diagnosed in time, but deadly if not.  “She” refused most medical treatment since her church told her God would take care of it… the husband being a lawyer knew all hell would break lose if he left it to the church’s way and took the boy to the doctor and later to the hosptial.  I guess a medical panel read the wife the riot act for being a flaming moron along with the headfucks from her church and threatened to bring legal action if she did not get her act together and do something right for her son.  (thank goodness someone had the guts to speak up and out).. that was a few years back.. kid is fine, in college etc.. they are with a more Mainstream church now and praying for forgiveness for being led astray by the false prophets..

Good grief !!!!!

Theo,

executive summary: Bullshit.

Now for a longer version… We’ve established that you’re opposed to human sacrifice and baby eating as acceptable exercise of religious freedom. Your argument implies that there are other conceivable religious practices that happen to endanger somebody’s personal safety that you do not reject out of hand. Please name a few relevant examples.

Of course not because you are the atheist materialist with the power.  The state could care less about you.  You are perfectly content to give all problems a material cause and material remedy. You are not the religious person that now has the state incredibly wary of him, for believing there is more to existence than chemical and physical reactions.

If with state we both refer to the U.S., this is a preposterous claim. How many openly atheistic people are in public service? I believe the answer to be zero. Do you have counter-examples? Are you implying there is indeed a hidden atheist conspiracy that runs the country? As far as I can tell, the current government bends over backwards to make more and more concessions to appease and yield more power to the Religious Right. You are right, though, that that state could care about poor little atheist me.

As to the state being wary of the religious, don’t you mistake not getting your way on constitutional grounds for something entirely different?

As to there being more then “chemical and physical reactions”, that’s an apologistic canard not worthy of further response.

Have you come up with the perfect balance between the state protecting us against terrorism and still allowing us to keep our civil liberties?  This is a similar conflict.

No, it isn’t. Terrorism is a real threat, even if there is room for disagreement of the magnitude of it. The public should be involved in a consensus decision what, if any, civil liberties they are willing to forfeit. A good answer, by the way, would be “None”.

Shielding a religious person from the consequences of his or her actions provided they are grounded in their specific religious beliefs is an entirely different kettle of fish. Where terrorism is a very real and well-documented threat, religion is an adult version of playing pretend.

“The second that acting out on your religious beliefs infringes on limb, life, liberty, rights, or whatnot of a non-consenting or coerced person, you have the freedom to face up to and including a lynch mob.”

But which non-consenting or coerced persons is it an infringement on?

The guy next door to you had a religious epiphany that compels him you hit you repeatedly with a two-by-four. Do you consent? Or does he have to tie you up and tell you to stop squirming and moaning?

Please note I am talking about religion in the broadest sense, any conceivable or inconceivable whack job sect included.

But should parents be able to determine what healthcare they choose to practice for themselves and their families?

This is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Shouldn’t I be allowed NOT to take medicine or get psychiatric help if I’m depressed or suicidal because I believe the cause of the depression transcends the material world?

In most states of the U.S., a notable example of which happens to be Florida, you have the right to refuse medical treatment, no justification asked. If such a refusal to seek treatment of a condition you are aware of results in injury to another person, can you give good cause why you shouldn’t be held legally liable?

In a more general sense, you seem to imply that being misinformed and well-intentioned may be sufficient reason to escape prosecution. I believe the legal system will find this insufficient cause to set aside a judgement, but it may well reduce the severity of it.

If I were a parent responsible for a child should I be required to give my child medication to deal with ADHD?

Again off-topic. What you should do, of course, is whatever happens to be in the best interest of your child. If there is a medication that promises to be both safe and effective and no equivalent non-medicated treatment options are available, the decision is a no-brainer. If none of the options is both safe and sound, you would do what every parent does in a similar situation - agonize over a decision, pick one, and take it from there.

but with my limited knowledge of even this situation I’m not sure if I would count this as an extreme situation.

In my opinion (and I am a parent; it is quite clear you are NOT), if it endangers a child (as this woman’s mental illness clearly did), or even threatens to, religious freedom be damned.  There are too many dead kids who would be alive today if not for their parents’ whacky religious beliefs.  That this woman actively murdered her child is, to my way of thinking, as heinous and horrific as those parents’ whose children are dead because of their religious objection to blood transfusions or other medical treatments.

If you’re a consenting adult and put your life and health in “god’s hands” rather than those of a qualified medical practitioner, have at it.  But putting a minor child in physical danger should get that kid taken away from you.

For fuck’s sake, a parent can hardly yell at a kid today without someone wanting to call the authorities on them, but anything that can be justified as a matter of the parent’s religious faith is supposed to be excused?  I THINK NOT.