"My Parents Got God, And All I Got Was This Lousy Casket!"
Religion kills, and not just when terrorists strap bombs to their chests in the name of it. It's what parents of various denominations use to justify refusing medical treatment for their kids, writes Ronald Bailey in Reason:
"You can't beat, sexually abuse or starve your kids, but the law allows a parent to refuse medical care in favor of magic," says Dr. Seth Asser, co-author of an article on medically preventable child fatalities.
Yes, it's 2003, and we have all this science, and people are still crossing their fingers and hoping Johnny's cancer boo-boo will go away. Should we really allow kids to die because their parents are wildly irrational (and/or just plain stupid, as in the case of the parents who kidnapped their kid with cancer to prevent him from getting chemotherapy)?
And how many people are dead this week just because other people believe in god? Last week, for example, there was that darling little autistic boy in Milwaukee, who had the bad fortune to be born to a parent who found it perfectly reasonable to let her preacher wrap him in sheets, hold him down, kicking and screaming, and pray to ìcast the devil out of himî -- in turn, suffocating him:
"What we was trying to do was call the spirit out of the young man that was making him not act right," (the preacher) said.Sick, sick stuff. Add that little boy's death to those of myriad people in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia who were blown to bits in the past seven days or otherwise offed in the name of religion. If anybody's got a bit of time on their hands, it seems a worthwhile enterprise to keep daily or weekly count of people who would be alive, but for their primitive beliefs, or somebody else's. To keep the contest fair, I promise to keep close watch on the numbers of people strapping bombs to their chests and hopping on packed buses because they're highly rational and have a belief in free will and secular ethics.
I had an aunt who was a follower of Christian Science. My uncle was abusing her, and she was always ill, but her church wouldn't let her go to the hospital, so she died by his hand and there was never any evidence other than circumstantial, so he was never prosecuted. If the "church" had just let her go to the doctor, there would have been documentation of abuse.
Bah! There's always a handful that ruin the perception of the many
Clarkified at September 4, 2003 8:22 AM
Amy --
Do you think the suicide bombing is really about religion or philosophy, though? People sometimes condemn Nietzche's work because Hitler was inspired by it, as though the holocaust were caused by Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland has nothing to do with a quibble over whether Jesus' mother was a virgin. The religious differences overlay a class conflict, essentially. If I could magically remove one aspect of Irish culture for the sake of peace, it would not be religion. It would be their penchant for alcohol. And this is coming from an Irish girl who likes to get her drink on!
Leener the Weener
Lena Cuisina at September 4, 2003 8:36 AM
(This is Cecile, not Cathy)
I'm thankful that I have perfectly sane parents. I met a Christian Scientist or two, but they are sensible people and not the radical kinds. I think that medicare should be mandatory even for those radical Christians so that more lives can be saved.
cecile at September 4, 2003 9:03 PM
Amy wrote, "And how many people are dead this week just because other people believe in god?" I think there's no question that the people you mention in your story are misguided, to say the least.
On the other hand, how many more didn't kill because their spiritual/religious/philisophical beliefs wouldn't allow it? The vast majority I'm guessing. Ever heard of a Sufi terrorist? Or a Buddhist terrorist? (Doesn't roll off the tongue very well). Like Lena said, there are many factors that go into the violence we see happening in the world today. And science isn't the cure-all; it did give us the nuclear bomb and the suv after all. The people I admire the most have a foot in both worlds: Jane Goodall, Fritjof Capra, and the like.
joe g at September 5, 2003 7:26 AM
Clarkified, that is a very sad story. It's sickening to hear of such a tragic end, one that could have been avoided.
joe g at September 5, 2003 7:30 AM
One can't be truly rational, or really be justified in calling oneself a scientist, if one believes in god. Here's an article by Richard Dawkins on the topic, and another by Daniel Dennett, right next to it:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bright/bright_index.html
(Amy Alkon) at September 5, 2003 9:58 AM
Some good points in those articles, Amy, but I didn't find much there addressing the statement you made. Just wondering if you are suggesting that we call into question the findings of someone like Goodall because of her personal spiritual beliefs? Wouldn't the quality of her observational skills and fieldwork have greater bearing here? Yikes! Answers to these questions could go off on so many tangents, probably beyond the scope of this forum. Sorry!
Myself, I'm more artist than scientist, so I guess I'm not as worried about my work being accepted on the grounds that it's "rational".
joe g at September 5, 2003 12:36 PM
A good scientist does good science, period. You don't need to know about someone's personal beliefs to evaluate their work objectively. A person can believe in god and still make objective observations of the physical or social world using rigorous scientific methods. It happens!
Lena Cuisina at September 5, 2003 12:44 PM
It's interesting to note that most if not all of men who initiated the scientific revolution considered themselves to be devout Christians. Little did they know that their work would quickly shatter the intellectual hedgemony of The Church. It's a fascinating history, really.
BTW Lena, the second sentence in your post seems to be one of the major points of those two articles.
joe g at September 5, 2003 1:25 PM
I'm suspicious of any scientist who's selectively scientific.
(Amy Alkon) at September 5, 2003 1:32 PM
There is professional life, and there is personal life. Scientists can do science, go home, and do whatever or BELIEVE whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes and communities. Why is that so hard to understand?
Lena Cuisina at September 5, 2003 10:01 PM
Because I'm rigid and intolerant.
(Amy Alkon) at September 8, 2003 1:23 PM