The Other Arguments

Unlike the argument for morality, the remaining four arguments are much more concrete. From here, all the points are grounded in fact, and the debate becomes less of an ideological war.

In every case presented, it is important to establish whether or not medicine was necessary, or could have helped. Unfortunately for the evangelical argument, in essentially every instance medicine could have saved the child's life; if it couldn't have, there wouldn't be a mob with pitchforks waiting to crucify the criminally insane evangelicals for killing their children.

Because all the evidence practically screams that medicine would have saved a life, my supporting evidence here is easily found and abundant (sadly). One 16 year old boy was in pain for years due to an easily treatable urinary tract infection; he was ultimately killed from it, despite the availability of medicine.

On the other hand, the fundies have very little support. All they can argue is that prayer is the only answer to disease. But that doesn't change the fact that while their prayers went unanswered, medicine could have stepped in and done the necessary work. One family was willing to go to a doctor and use medicine, but their beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses prevented the son with leukemia from receiving a blood transplant. The blood was crucial for the treatment, but all the family did was put blood cell balloons in his hospital room to help him visualize the work his body needed to do. With medicine, he wouldn't have needed to visualize producing blood cells; all he would have needed was to let the transfused blood heal his cancerous body.

Having established that medicine was a necessity in each case, it remains to be decided whether or not the parents had the right to decide for their children that medicine was not an option for them.

When laws protecting the use of religion instead of medicine were first introduced during the 70s and 80s, parents were given greater freedom in deciding what was right for their children, with devastating effects. However, laws that allowed that kind of behavior are becoming less popular, and there are many instances of parents being brought to court on various charges, including child abuse, manslaughter, second-degree reckless homicide, and others. And these parents are not only being charged; some have been convicted. Though the number of convictions is not as high as it should be (100%), it is at least improving from what it had been in the years directly following the institution of religious protection laws. In addition, in some instances Child Services has been able to remove children from the custody of their parents.

Finally, at the crux of the matter is the argument for freedom of religion. No one is claiming that that freedom shouldn't be respected or upheld. However, critics of the demented fundamentalists have cited the need for a limitation of the extension of that right. Freedom of religion maintains that everyone is free to practice their own beliefs; but when those beliefs become harmful to others, there is no government protection. In the same way the members of a cannibalistic religion would not be protected if they began killing their fellow citizens and eating them, parents shouldn't be protected when they stand idly by as their children die. They have no right to any protection against so-called "religious persecution" if their actions are so directly detrimental to anyone.