Does religious liberty protect child neglect?

Last updated on: August 17, 2016 at 12:51 pm by Jacob Lupfer

Does religious liberty protect child neglect? 2016-08-17T12:51:39-04:00 Jacob Lupfer

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Image credit: Pixabay

If my child dies because I forbid medical treatment for religious reasons, should I be held criminally liable?

This is a very interesting — and different — kind of religious freedom question. Today’s most contentious and popular religious-liberty debates center around ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate, wedding vendors’ conscience objections, and government money flowing to religious organizations that do not affirm same sex relationships.

But the Pew Research Center recently produced a report about little-known exemptions in state laws concerning child abuse and neglect.

All states prosecute parents whose children come to severe harm through neglect. But in 34 states (as well as the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico), there are exemptions in the civil child abuse statutes when medical treatment for a child conflicts with the religious beliefs of parents, according to data collected by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Additionally, some states have religious exemptions to criminal child abuse and neglect statutes, including at least six that have exemptions to manslaughter laws.

As someone who has accepted some religious liberty claims and rejected others, I find this to be a fascinating question.

For obvious reasons, I do not hear religious freedom advocates talking about the importance of defending parents’ rights to watch their children die because they have some religious objection to medical treatment. As the Pew report points out, states quickly consider ending religious exemptions when children die needlessly.

Mainstream religious freedom advocates are most comfortable defending the freedom of “normal” religions with “normal” objections. For instance, it tends not to be very controversial that Catholic hospitals are not forced to perform abortions, which the Catholic Church considers to be a grievous moral evil. And religious institutions commonly expect exemptions from nondiscrimination statutes that protect sexual orientation and gender identity.

But who is in the public square working hard to protect the rights of adherents to minority religions to deny medical treatment to their own children?

Lately, conservative religious-liberty advocates have raised eyebrows by saying that they want religious freedom for all, not just for themselves. This has evidently been hard for some conservative Christians who do not have much familiarity with Islam.

But who is included in “all” when we speak of religious liberty for all? What are the limits of religious freedom? And who decides?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/12/most-states-allow-religious-exemptions-from-child-abuse-and-neglect-laws/

Previous Post

August 15, 2016

Trump's appeals to Utah voters in Deseret News op-ed

Next Post

August 17, 2016 Are Trump and Clinton equally flawed?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category #Faith2016 Christian right Christianity Debates Democratic Convention Donald Trump GOP nominating contest Inauguration Media News roundup Personal Polls Religious freedom Republican Convention Uncategorized

Select a Month February 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 August 2017 July 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz