PeterDavid.net

Every so often I'm tempted to assemble "The Bible As People Think It Is" or something along those lines. A heavily redacted Bible that only has the bits and pieces that people actually use to justify their actions, plus quotables (like John 3:16 or the beatitudes) and extraBiblical texts (such as the Passion story) that people assume are in the Bible.

It'd be pretty short, maybe the Gideon people could hand it out instead.

This falls into what I always say when religious folks try to say we can't use the technology and knowledge that scientific research yields.

If God created and started everything and knows the whole plan, then why did he give us the knowledge and ability to do these things if he didn't want us to use it?

God helps those who help themselves, and we shouldn't waste our God given talents then.

Sorry for the multiple posts. computer acting strange today.

(LIST MOM: I fixed it. The system has been rather funky today)

"plus quotables (like John 3:16 or the beatitudes) and extraBiblical texts (such as the Passion story) that people assume are in the Bible."

Uh... are you saying the Passion story in NOT in the Bible? I'm pretty sure it's in there 3 or 4 times.

Even the Amish believe in modern medicine.

To paraphrase Doonesbury, the wonderful thing about modern medicine is that it's ... intelligently designed.

TWL

I assume these were Christian Scientists or the like.

Stupid. Like I tell my prophet, I tell him that earthly problems should be dealt with by earthly means.

Of course, I also tell him that he should eat and drink as he wishes and should imbibe whatever makes his earthly form feel pleasure but never do anything to excess. To live a sober life is not in the universe's plan for Man. It is antithetical to a balanced existence. Balance in all things, I say. All things except humor. Humor should be man's one and only excess, though he should have as many vices as his body can handle.

I really wish he wasn't so lazy and got on the ball, I'm constantly handing him all this pearls of wisdom and he talks about starting the Church Of El Coyote, but keeps putting it off.

But that's Prophet's for you, the good ones are never truly sure of themselves, while the bad ones, or the ones who have named themselves so, are so sure of their connection to the Divine that they never take the time to think things through.

Peter, were these people Christian Scientists? (I see Coyote asked the same question). Do you have a link to a story on this?

The report I saw said that they belonged to no organized religion and did not attend any local church (which must come as a great relief to those churches).

People like this pretend to be full of faith but they are essentially daring God to show himself to them. Oh sure, other people may have to get medical help for their kids but not Dale and Leilani Neumann--they're so special that God will surely perform a miracle so spectacular that everyone will know just how special they are!

According to w*w.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html the mother still thinks her daughter might be resurrected. The police chief is quotes as saying that Madeline's 3 siblings are not considered to be in any danger. I disagree.

Here's my question for the Neumann's--will they now put their faith in God to get them out of this trouble through prayer or will they hire a lawyer? Anyone want to take bets?

That is awful. Not just because of the tragedy but because of the attitude that caused it. You want to trust your own health to faith, fine, I can't stop you, but don't you dare drag a child into it. Did the child have a choice in praying or getting medicine?

I believe that prayer is a beautiful and wonderful thing and I love how some people draw strength from it, but I never understand the attitude that it's a cure-all. People believe in free will but then expect that God will take care of them like favorite pets. Free will means you get off your ass and help yourself. There is no free ride.

God, that makes me angry.

George: the full story, with the fourteen stages and all that, is a medieval invention that people often assume is in the Bible. Parts of it are in the Bible, but not all the stuff people assume is.

Reminds me of a case out here in Indiana a few years ago. It involved a young couple from a small denominational church whose members also believed that prayer was all that was needed to heal the sick. Their infant daughter came down with some deadly condition or other (I don't have kids myself so the name of this condition had no reason to stick in my memory) that a trained kids' doctor could have diagnosed in roughly ten minutes and prescribed cheap medicine to cure. The couple chose prayer alone instead. Kid died. Parents went on trial and were found guilty of neglect and _maybe_ voluntary manslaughter as well, I don't totally recall. What I do recall well was a local columnist writing about the case and expressing her disgust about the parents' attitude towards their daughter's death and their subsequent conviction and sentence. Evidently the parents had a smuggish attitude (or simply came across as having one), deciding the loss of their daughter and their upcoming stint in prison was all God's Will, and they were going to bear their burden with pride.

So if it's any consolation to the PADguy, there's at least one similar case where the judge and jury didn't buy a religious pratices defense (or whatever the legal name of that arguement would be) that can be used as a precedent. On the other hand, there's also a recent case I read about where a judge threw out fingerprint evidence in a criminal trial because she wasn't convinced that the science behind them was sound, so a precedent might not mean much on this case either.

Chris

I'm an atheist, but even I'll say, "Amen to that."

That poor little girl. My heart goes out to her, and her parents should be rankly ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen.

PAD, that is exactly the story that always comes to my mind when I hear about things like this or run into Christian Scientists.

Seriously, folks. If you're so deferential to "God", who do you think you are that you can dictate what form the miracle takes?

Hypocrites, selfish hypocrites. The whole lot of them.

What a truly tragic story. And, unfortunately, I am sure it is not the only one.

Many medical advances have been made by Christians, so it does amaze me when some claim to rely on "faith" rather than common sense. Even the Apostle Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach's sake, not just to pray and hope the ailment went away.

This really has little to do with a form of Christianity or religion and more to do with the ignorance and stubbornness of some warped individuals. As such, I fear things like this will continue no matter what the belief system that is used as an excuse.

Iowa Jim

I agree that the parents' behavior was inexcusable, but want to point out that Ecclesiasticus, or the Book of Sirach, appears in Christian Bibles among the Apocrypha, rather than the canonical books. A fundamentalist might reject it as having any validity (I suppose - I don't base my own behavior exclusively on Biblical injunction. If I did, Leviticus would be a serious problem.).

A fundamentalist might reject it as having any validity

Actually, most Protestants do not consider that book as authoritative, not just Fundamentalists.

Interpretations of the Old Testament vary. But most of Christianity does not see the Old Testament applying to us in all aspects. It was written to the nation Israel. The New Testament indicates (clearly, in my opinion), that the burden of the Old Testament law was removed. That does not mean some things (adultery, for example) is now ok. But it is now a moral, not a civil code. (Hence, many conservative Christians wanted separation of church and state when this country was founded. Obviously, current conservative Christianity has somewhat blurred that line.)

Iowa Jim

It is sad, but typical of so many of the evengelicals to choose one passage from the Bible, yet ignore others. Also, if they spoke to their pastor or minister (as these folks always seem to do), should not she or he told them of this verse? Just wondering.

I will agree with Iowa Jim that most Protestants would not see the Apocrypha as authoritative. I certainly don't, despite the passage PAD quoted being very good sense. As for some general Protestant approach to the Old Testament, I think that varies by denomination, congregation and individual. Many fundamentalists would consider it quite authoritative, indeed, and build frightening sermons from its harsher passages. I favor seeing the New Testament as replacing Old Testament rules (for myself, rather than society as a whole) where there is a conflict, but many people see fewer contradictions than I do.

If one is single- and closed-minded enough, one can find justification to behave wrongly in the teachings of virtually any religion. There are fools and monsters in every religious body.

I'm reminded of a couple stories about my Great Aunts (My Grandfathers sisters) who were Christian Scientists.
I have had problems with my back and my Aunt asked me, during one extremly nasty bout, how I was feeling, I told her not so good, and she asked if I had considered a second opinion which kind of blew me away. And then when they were in thier senior home my mother told them that if we were to find them in need of medical aide that we would not hesitate to call an ambulance to which she replied, of course thats what you will do.
I dont know if this made them "bad" Christian Scientists but they both lived into thier 80's
Maybe they had a doctor on the side that none of us knew about.

Pat, apparently Christian Scientists are allowed to seek medical help without any danger of being kicked out of the church (as would, I think, happen to a Jehovah's Witness who took a blood donation. If I understand their theology correctly they believe that some kind of prayer healing is preferable but since it may not always be possible to get quality prayer other means may be used.

(I also recall a study that reported that Christian Scientists had a significantly shorter lifespan than no members. While it's easy to imagine how such a study could be faulty--might many members have joined after conventional medicine has failed to cure their ailments--it seems to me that a reasonably good study could be done that would take such variables into account. At the very least, I would expect that not believing in the existence of pathogens would make them very susceptible during epidemics.

That is indeed maddening to think about, the way she suffered.

If somebody wants to subject himself to that kind of torment in the name of his faith, that's his business...but let your kids make up their own mind about whether it's bullshit or not, and whether seeing a doctor will equal eternal damnation or not.

Speaking of eternal damnation, I know that this is off-topic and I'm sorry but one thing you said reminded me of a sentiment expressed in a FNSM story you wrote. "Life itself is miraculous," you write. In FNSM, Quentin Beck comes back because he has seemingly gone to hell for committing suicide. The reason for this is because he was given the gift of life, which is supposed to be precious, and he rejected it because it got too painful for him. For that, he apparently deserved to suffer even worse in God's opinion.

I don't think life is actually a precious gift in itself. Being born is a roll of the dice; you might be born into privilege, or with a loving family that supports you, or with an abusive family that is awful to you, or into poverty, or a Christian Scientist family like this one...you just never know. For some people it isn't a gift, it's a curse. Maybe if they tried really hard for a really long time, they could overcome that curse and make their lives into something good. But if they instead choose to expedite their inevitable death, that's understandable. It's totally understandable for somebody to want their suffering to end, and it would be the height of cruelty for God to be angry at them for that and say that they deserve even worse suffering.

Or to put it another way, if God gets angry at somebody who commits suicide to escape a life of nothing but suffering, it's as reasonable as if I spent a lot of money on a lobster dinner for a friend and my friend said "I'm sorry, but I'm allergic. I would get sick if I ate that." I wouldn't get angry at my friend for rejecting a gift that--while many other people would love to have it--would be bad for him. I would accept it.

Bill says: Pat, apparently Christian Scientists are allowed to seek medical help without any danger of being kicked out of the church (as would, I think, happen to a Jehovah's Witness who took a blood donation

I think Jehovah's Witness are more strict, though we have treated many in our Emergency Dept. They will absolutly not take any blood products. Not even their own if they were to plan ahead. I asked a pt. who was a Witness why?, (because I had no clue and always wondered and the opportunity presented itself so I took advantage), he was more then happy to explain that they do not believe the human body should ever consume blood.
It was funny, the admitting Dr. came into the room during the time I was in there, I was drawing blood samples and he made a big deal about making sure the pt. knew he understood the giving blood issue and that we were just going to test the blood. The pt. just rolled his eyes at me.

might many members have joined after conventional medicine has failed to cure their ailments

That would make sense, they both were late converts not sure at what age though, apparently they joined to beat drinking problems.

I would like to propose, for the consideration of the Deity (be he Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin), the creation of s new Circle devoted specifically to parents like this.

They probably meant well, Mike. Maybe they thought that as bad as their daughter was suffering right now, she'd suffer even worse in the afterlife if they took her to a doctor.

I don't think people who deny their kids these kinds of things should be allowed to raise kids, but as horrible as Madeline's pain was, it's important to remember that they weren't taking pleasure in her suffering. They were just delusional. (At least I hope so.)

Mike W, you are a fluke of the universe.

Pat, the JH opposition to blood is just plain goofy--the bible says specifically that it is against blood eating. To make that into a taboo on transfusions seems a ridiculous stretch.

This reminds me of this family on Dr Phil one day (I despise him, but my girlfriend for some reason loves the show)...

The husband had his family living in poverty, about to lose their home, and he claimed God spoke to him and told him to go into business selling that spray to put on license plates so people could avoid tickets.

Dr Phil brought a priest on to quote from the Bible and show the guy how wrong he was, and the guy would just turn around and quote other verses.

In the meantime Dr Phil was like: So God told you it was ok to break the law?

be he Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin

And just remember that two wrongs never make a right ... but that three lefts do.

TWL

I was never really a fan of Babylon 5, but one of the episodes I really did like was the one with the space alien JWs who slaughtered their child after the doctor administered life saving treatment against their will.

You are talking about aliens, Nick Eden. Of course we humans should respect their laws and traditions but when they are in conflict with ours, on human territory, human values and laws count. If an alien wants to do something that is legal for him, he has to do so on his territory, alien worlds and ships in question, for example.

The aliens in question were on Babylon 5 and the child was in the care of a human doctor. Dr. Franklin did what he had to do - and the parents of that child followed their own laws and customs. Both were right and that made this story so moving and tragic.

The unfortunate girl was not an alien from a different world. She was a human being. I don`t know US laws but here in Britain, children who are refused life saving treatments can be put under the protection of a court becoming a "ward of court".

As I keep saying, give me one single example of a religious value that is worth defending - and I mean religious, not human values. I can`t think of any. This is another example of many that shows me that the world would be a much better place without any religion.

be he Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin

And just remember that two wrongs never make a right ... but that three lefts do.

I only wish these people were flukes of the universe.

Baerbel Haddrell: "As I keep saying, give me one single example of a religious value that is worth defending - and I mean religious, not human values. I can`t think of any. This is another example of many that shows me that the world would be a much better place without any religion."

Actually, last week I finished reading the book "God is not great" by Christopher Hitchens. While I do feel he's a bit pushy at times (there are worse tirades) he does make some strong cases in that religion (all of them) on the whole has done far more harm in the world than good, this case being a shining example. I do recommend the book anyway.

Also, numerous studies have shown there is a strong link between extreme religion (think SKing's Carrie's mother) and schizophrenia. People who cannot separate religion from real life literally are not in their right mind. Does anyone really believe the post-partum-depressed mother was told by God to kill her baby? The court can't have it both ways. If their delusions were anything but religious, the State would step in and save the child, but the minute you label something as religious in nature, no one wants to intervene.
What a spineless shame.

Rob Brown: but as horrible as Madeline's pain was, it's important to remember that they weren't taking pleasure in her suffering. They were just delusional. (At least I hope so.)

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I think there was a certain amount of, if not pleasure, something appealing to them in what they were doing. Satisfaction, a sense of righteousness or piety. There was some measure of satisfaction for them in this.

No person who has any sense of compassion (let along a parent who supposedly loves their child) would sit by and watch another's suffering, prolonged suffering, unless there is some other positive feeling they get to offset the discomfort they supposedly feel.

"Am I glad my child is hurting? No, absolutely of course not. But I do feel some slight measure of pride at the strength of my faith and the example I'm setting." Something.

However strong their feelings for their child, there was selfishness here. And their child died for it.

I was kind of hoping that that B5 episode would end with the revelation that the parents had been right...because they're aliens, and they know how their species works better than human Dr. Franklin, thank you very much.

Posted by: Baerbel Haddrell

You are talking about aliens, Nick Eden. Of course we humans should respect their laws and traditions but when they are in conflict with ours, on human territory, human values and laws count. If an alien wants to do something that is legal for him, he has to do so on his territory, alien worlds and ships in question, for example.

There is a story from the days of the Raj - a local rajah had died, and his ministers were planning a traditional funeral and pyre for him, including forcing his young wife to be burnt alive on his pyre with him.

The British Commisioner for the district allowed as how this was not right, and he didn't think he could permit it.

The ministers in question reminded him of a recent decree from London that the people were to be allowed to follow local customs, and that suttee was one of their customs.

The Commissioner said that he could understand that, but that he was bound to follow *his* people's customs - one of which was hanging murderers...

The unfortunate girl was not an alien from a different world. She was a human being. I don`t know US laws but here in Britain, children who are refused life saving treatments can be put under the protection of a court becoming a "ward of court".

We have such laws here in the States, but whether you can get such a declaration depends on the attitudes of the judge you draw, and it may take a while ... time that can run out in a case like this.

Makes me wish there were the prosecutorial equivalent of the Comic Book Defense League Fund where we could contribute to help prosecute idiots such as that.

Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 26, 2008 04:46 PM

Pat, the JH opposition to blood is just plain goofy--the bible says specifically that it is against blood eating. To make that into a taboo on transfusions seems a ridiculous stretch.

Yeah, I agree. I guess to each their own. I was going to tell him we dont make you drink it. We often talk at work of what would happen if someone of either of those faiths showed up needing medical aide without us knowing their beliefs and them being unable to tell us for whatever reason, what would happen. i mean I know what we would do, which is obvious, they get treated but we wonder if they would raise a stink.
Im sure this has had to of happened somewhere by now.

One of the themes of "No Country For Old Men" as it was presented in the film was that progress depends on a detachment from reality, with Tommy Lee Jones tying the aftermath of the seemingly-arbitrary behavior of the killer all together at the end with his dream of his father delivering fire.

Being wrong doesn't mean these people were insincere, and it doesn't mean they feel any less of the pain of parents who make no mistake and lose their child anyway. There is no hell to carve out for these people they don't already inhabit.

From my wonderfully atheistic viewpoint and my limited interest thereby, I do recall that all bible-based theology admits one point without any room for wiggle.

Our creator endowed us with free will and intelligence, and enabled us to use one, the other, or both at the same time.

Fact: we have PROVEN that insulin works to treat most type-1 diabetes, and most of the rest just need a supplement to go with it.

They chose to rely on a deity who is worshiped by as many names as the supposed miracles that accompany them. Even when His Presence was more active on our sphere, He was known to be capricious. In His defense, I've seen things I can't explain. I've experienced love, and I've known things that have moved me in every fiber of my being, maybe even in my soul.

And this one scares me. Legally, this could set a BAD precedent. Morally, imho, it's reprehensible, both on the parts of the parents and the local law enforcement who failed to help this girl. And does anyone know what MADELEINE'S viewpoint was on the subject? And I don't want to hear she was just a kid. I was legally a minor when I stopped going to shul, but since I had completed an arbitrary ceremony I was a man in their viewpoint and allowed to behave as I wished.

According to my heritage(and Peter's and many others on the board, I am sure), I'm supposed to practice 613 rules to ensure God's continued love of me. I have my reasons for not practicing. My brother is a devout orthodox man who broke one of the Big Ten trying to interpret the Talmud according to his rabbi's standards. And let's leave my family out of this; if God does exist, how am I supposed to know which way out of the ways available to me is the one He wants to be worshiped through? For all I can prove, my bar mitzvah may have been the equivalent of giving him a hot foot if I didn't do it right...or even if I did.

The amount of good that's done in the name of religion is astounding. The amount of evil that uses the aforementioned good as a cloak is probably at least as weighty on the world's karmic scales. I think that when I die, if I am held accountable for my deeds by a celestial host, I will be able to say without fear, "I tried to be a good man. I saw your works and I questioned them, and I tried to leave the world a better place for my having been there and to not intentionally harm my fellow man." I hope that will be enough for any reasonable deity to accept.

These parents definitely had the faith I lack, but they fall into a third category of right and wrong in religion for me: the well intentioned idiot. God will take care of our daughter! Science is the devil's tool!

May they be judged as I would be judged: for the deeds they performed on this Earth.

meant to leave my e-mail address visible for those who are in the know. chefjbc@yahoo.com

As I keep saying, give me one single example of a religious value that is worth defending - and I mean religious, not human values. I can`t think of any. This is another example of many that shows me that the world would be a much better place without any religion.

While the notion that no religion is literal is controversial to fundamentalists, there is practically no disagreement that words are not the things they represent. If we can't do without something as dead as language, arguing the deadness of religion doesn't disqualify its representational value.

We are creatures of reason and experience. Our experiences are in 4 dimensions, but the thinking with which we represent and portray our experiences can be reduced to the single dimension of language. We have some archetypal representation of our relationship between our reason and our experience in the form of Jungian analysis -- and almost no one here has picked up on it. The dimensional gap of our reason and our experience is predominantly represented to us in the form of religion.

You have the book of Job, where Job calls out God to answer for allowing him to be punished in spite of his piety, and God responds that He has discretion as the creator of everything. In the Koran, Satan didn't refuse to bow to man out of pride; like Olive in "Little Miss Sunshine," Satan disobeyed Allah out of his devotion to Him. Buddhism highlights the gap between reason and experience with the contradictions in the reductio ad absurdum that Peter has argued doesn't disqualify anything.

The world would not be better without religion simply because religion is our primary means to demonstrate the very true notion that reason cannot be all things to anyone. If reason could be all things to anyone, we wouldn't tolerate parents responding to their children, "because I said so," or with any discretion on their part whatsoever.

Posted by: Sean D. Martin at March 26, 2008 08:22 PM

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I think there was a certain amount of, if not pleasure, something appealing to them in what they were doing. Satisfaction, a sense of righteousness or piety. There was some measure of satisfaction for them in this.

I guess it could've been like that. If so, if they were at any point thinking more of themselves than their daughter, if they were in any way proud of themselves as you suggest they might have been, I'd find that pretty despicable.

But again we do not know the full story. All we get is bits and pieces. Take for example a story out of Texas. I forget the names, but here it goes. A little girl was being treated for cancer and it went into remission. When she was taking the treatments, they made her very ill. Loss of hair, weight loss and so forth. Her parents feared the treatment more than the cancer. Her cancer came back and the parents did not want to treat her again. She was taken from them. Now what irks me about this situation is the fact that the parents decision was overidden by those who thought they knew better. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Though their situation was personal and not religious reasons the situations are similar. Some people believe no matter what we do, the outcome is in God's hands, whether you seek treatment or you do not. I personally do not know what to believe. I think unless the intent is proven to be ill-well(did I spell this right), the parents decision should be their decision. My personal belief is everything happens for a reason. Only God knows why.

Jay: And does anyone know what MADELEINE'S viewpoint was on the subject? And I don't want to hear she was just a kid. I was legally a minor when I stopped going to shul, but since I had completed an arbitrary ceremony I was a man in their viewpoint and allowed to behave as I wished.

I think her wishes should've been a factor too, Jay, whatever those wishes were. But...

First, it's really tough to decide this sort of thing for yourself when you are raised in a faith like this and you've got your parents hovering over you the whole time telling you that you're doing the right thing by not seeing a doctor. If she started out willing to try only prayer but after a while changed her mind and said she wanted to see a doctor, and her parents said "Oh honey, no, don't say that, seeing a doctor would be wrong. Try to be strong, God will get you through this, etc", they might very well be successful in convincing her to just lie there and rely on prayer. They were her parents, after all. So during that time, it was probably difficult for her to have her own viewpoint for very long.

Second, since her wishes do indeed matter, if at any point she decided that her well-being was more important than the faith she was raised in (and she probably did have a moment like that given how bad things got for her) and she asked for a doctor, IMO her parents had a duty to take her to one. It was what she wanted, and dammit, when you are in terrible pain and you can stop it without hurting anybody else, you should have the right to do that. It's similar logic to my feelings about why suicides do not deserve hell; they were only trying to put an end to their suffering. Madeline, by asking to see a doctor even though her faith supposedly forbade that, would have only been trying to put an end to her suffering. There is nothing wrong with that and nobody, not even her parents, should have tried to stop her.

Posted by Mike at March 27, 2008 12:10 AM: You have the book of Job, where Job calls out God to answer for allowing him to be punished in spite of his piety, and God responds that He has discretion as the creator of everything.

Which makes about as much sense as saying "I created my daughter, so I have discretion to beat her as often and as severely as I want." No way. Screw that. That's inexcusable, whether it's coming out of the mouth of a human being or the Creator of the Universe. And if there is a God and I go to hell for saying so, so be it. I'd probably already be going to hell for a lot of other things anyway.

...Job calls out God to answer for allowing him to be punished in spite of his piety, and God responds that He has discretion as the creator of everything.

Which makes about as much sense as saying "I created my daughter, so I have discretion to beat her as often and as severely as I want." No way. Screw that. That's inexcusable, whether it's coming out of the mouth of a human being or the Creator of the Universe.

It isn't fair or reasonable, but by definition of "Creator of the Universe," it's perfectly sensible. Your analogy doesn't apply because no man is the creator of everything.

And of course we have the act of a President taking his country into an misconceived war because God wants him to. And then standing by for 5 years as his country writhes in agony.

Situations like this involve many serious and complex issues.

Freedom of religion. What does that mean? HOw far does it go? Reason and common sense have lead use to conclude that it doesn't extend to ritual sacrifice. Cases like this suggest that such extends even to death caused by inaction. Where does that line stop? At what point does the government have the power to force a family to seek treatment for their child?

Our kids are under the age of three. They don't attend day care, and only infrequently attend classes. They've had no vaccinations. We feel that the schedule for vaccinations is too aggresive in some cases, in that shots are prescribed too early, or in some cases that the risk from the substances in the vaccins poses a greater health risk than the illness the vaccine is designed to combat. This decisions isn't one based on a whim, it's based on hours and hours of research and thought, and when we felt we'd better understood the true risks of both actions, we made our decision.

Can the government come into our home and force us to inject our children with foreign substances? I say no, and I pray it stays that way. But if the government can come into a home and remove a child because of the parents' spiritual beliefs, which are somewhat protected under the Constitution, what, really, could stop them?

edhopper: Is another tirade about Bush and the war REALLY necessary in this thread?

Ron -- no, it's not necessary, but it is appropriate in some ways given the topic of religious faith run amok. Bush is a textbook case of a former drug addict who's simply turned to religion as his new drug of choice, and has used it to justify things which impact a lot more people than poor Madeline Neumann.

That's all. No tirade intended.

TWL

And Bobb -- while on the whole I disagree with the choice you made vis-a-vis vaccinations, I certainly understand and respect it. I think there's got to be some way of allowing informed choices legally, but you're right that it's tough to figure out where that line might be.

TWL

And of course we have the act of a President taking his country into an misconceived war because God wants him to. And then standing by for 5 years as his country writhes in agony.

While reason can't be all things to anyone, privilege can be, as demonstrated when all the needs of a child provided by its parents. However, you can't count on privilege as you can count on reason.

Bush would have created a lot of slack for himself invading Iraq and all of his inaccuracies with a successful outcome. That part of what he did wasn't wrong.

I've been blogging about this all day. What is killing me most is how people are saying we shouldn't get moralistic or judge these parents.

This would not be a conversation if they were wiccan, or scientologists, or believed they had psychic powers.

The word 'god' makes it all OK.

I see this case as an extreme example of a wider dilemma: "Is it really right for parents to teach their religion to their young children?" I suppose almost all religious persons would feel outrage at the notion that they shouldn't be allowed to instruct their kids into spiritual matters, but I always wondered whether religious instruction at a young age is respectful of the child's free will?

Are you a Catholic/Jew/Muslim because you really feel an affinity for that specific faith? Or just because your family trained/cajoled/bullied you into it? Wouldn't it be saner to wait for a child to reach a certain age (13? 15? 18?) and then let them choose? Of course, adults aren't immune to social pressure either, no one is, but it's supposed that adults can make more informed decisions.

I consider myself fortunate that my Mom was a Catholic and my Dad was a black sheep Atheist from a Evangelical family, and so in the clash between my parents' different spiritual views I felt free to follow one or another or neither (I ended up not as skeptical as my Dad, but also not as religious as my Mom).

Anyway, people either laugh or get angry when I compare religion to sex, in that both should have the same "age of consent".

That's an interesting question, Rene, but it can be expanded to more than just religion. I've seen plenty of families where voting for "the other party" is akin to treason. (For that matter, it took a while for my dad to forgive me when I was accepted into his college and then went somewhere else.)

I haven't had to deal with much of that on the parenting side yet, since my daughter's only 3 1/2 ... but my sense for all of these things is that it's fine to teach them your faith/politics/school allegiance/etc., so long as you also teach them open-mindedness and that they should come to their own opinions honestly. My wife and I are both atheists, for example, but if Katherine winds up coming to a religious viewpoint honestly and thoughtfully I can't see where we'd have reason to object.

That said, of course, if she's a conservative Republican we're shipping her to my uncle. :-)

TWL

Rene, interesting you should bring that up.
Catholic guy I work with has a daughter who is 9, now, I think.
He said that she chose to be Catholic when she was 6. He takes great pride and puts great weight on the fact that it was her decision, and so she is being raised catholic.
But, he won't let her read Harry Potter. Not because of the morality, but he finds the magic concerning and the fact that there is no god or what-have-you. And he worries that the characters are so charasmatic as to drag her from her faith.
So, he claims the girl made this profound decision, which justifies him raising her how he wants, but then places so little faith in her faith that she can't read certain books.
Oh, and he wouldn't let her have a non-catholic boyfriend either.

When you need something and you pray for it, and it "happens" to work out-people are like god answered my prayers. Yet child and females get kidnapped, raped and killed, and I'm sure they were praying to god too!

I was raised very heavily in religion, and I think some of the most biggest airheads are these religious zealots in religion.

you need a job, you tell friends and family, you buy a newpaper. You won't wait for someone to call you at of the blue. I'm sure this same family got that kid it's baby shots and regular check ups.

Children are an odd thing in our society. Maybe it's more accurate to say they are simultaneously many things, and not even the sum of all those titles truly encompases them.

We find they aren't legally able to enter into contracts until they turn 18. We place them in the care of their parents, who are presumed to be capable and responsible for their care and upbringing...until said parents demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to perform those duties. We don't really tell parents what they need to do in order to fulfill those duties, but we pretty much recognize when they've failed.

In many ways, we allow parents to punish their children in ways that we don't allow our government to punish the worst criminals. Sure, we can deprive someone of their freedom, maybe even their life...but we aren't allowed to force someone to stand on a corner bearing a sign proclaiming their crime for all to see. Yet we allow parents to do this, and without the benefit of a trial, no less.

There's so much interesting, contrasting social constructs built around children that most of us don't even realize exist.

"edhopper: Is another tirade about Bush and the war REALLY necessary in this thread?"

Why yes, it was. And thank you for using the right wing tactic of calling any criticism of the war a "tirade".

Bobb Alfred: Our kids are under the age of three. They don't attend day care, and only infrequently attend classes. They've had no vaccinations. We feel that the schedule for vaccinations is too aggresive in some cases, in that shots are prescribed too early, or in some cases that the risk from the substances in the vaccins poses a greater health risk than the illness the vaccine is designed to combat. This decisions isn't one based on a whim, it's based on hours and hours of research and thought, and when we felt we'd better understood the true risks of both actions, we made our decision.
Luigi Novi: Bobb, is this a reference to the Thiomersal or MMR vaccine controversies?

"Luigi Novi: Bobb, is this a reference to the Thiomersal or MMR vaccine controversies?"

Only partly. For some vaccines, the actual risk of getting the bug isn't all that great. The evidence suggesting that the preservative used in recent vaccines...whether Thimerosal or otherwise...isn't as safe as most Drs will tell is pretty large. From what I've seen, the numbers don't justify the conclusions made. The vaccine court itself recently admitted that the MMR vaccine exacerbated a pre-existing condition that resulted in a tragic impact for one family, and I can't believe that's an isolated case.

What it came down to for us was this...for most of the things that vaccines exist for, the impact for some was minor. For others, the impact could be pretty serious, even fatal. But the chance of exposure in all cases was remote.

On the other hand, while there are few to none cases of those diseases in modern America, there's a growing number of cases where children experience life-changing negative impacts or death immediately (as in the days after) following the application of a vaccine.

If our children were to be afflicted with something that we could have vaccinated them against, we'd be crushed, but I know that we'd eventually recover. But if our children were to suffer an onset of autism, or death, as a result of something that we forced on them, I honestly don't know how we'd be able to forgive ourselves. It would be like we had killed them.

Wouldn't it be saner to wait for a child to reach a certain age (13? 15? 18?) and then let them choose? Of course, adults aren't immune to social pressure either, no one is, but it's supposed that adults can make more informed decisions.

I think if you don't indoctrinate a child into a religion, by the time they reach their teen years, I think they're more likely to have no leaning toward any faith at all. Whether that's a "good" thing or a "bad" thing is subject to individual interpretation, of course.

I know a lot of parents who are of mixed faiths opt to raise the child in both faiths with the notion of having the child choose once he or she is old enough to make an informed decision. Personally, I think that's a mistake because I think it puts the child in a position where the subtext is that he is deciding which parent he likes better. It's not, for instance, "Do you want to be Protestant or Jewish" but rather, "Do you want to be daddy's religion or mommy's religion?"

I don't see how deciding what religion to raise your child in is any different than deciding what moral code one is going to instill in one's child or what political leaning you're going to teach him is the preferred one in your house. It doesn't mean the kid won't go a different way when he gets older. But I think if you don't raise a child to believe in something, you're guaranteeing he won't believe in anything.

PAD

The controversy is actually a number of sad, confused parents looking for a reason behind their children's condition. There's no actual evidence to support any of this (contrary to what John McCain has said...)

The 'one family' MMR issue IS true. However that child had an EXCEEDINGLY rare condition, which, almost by definition IS "an isolated case".
These drugs/preservatives are not causing autism.
What is more likely is that there is a genetic componant and more people than we realize are carrying a mild case of autism such as aspergers. It was noted that in silicon valley and around the microsoft HQ, a large number of people had aspergers, BUT, due to the nature of hard-core geeks, they didn't actually seem any different than anyone else.

"if you don't raise a child to believe in something, you're guaranteeing he won't believe in anything."
Well, thats simply not the case.
If you don't teach them to believe in god, yeah, they may grow up not having god or religion.
But there are gazillions of other things worth believing in.
The child will, simply, learn what he believes in.
Perhaps he will believe that helping other people is the greatest thing in the world.
Perhaps he will believe in the free market to make sure that everyone gets what they need.
Perhaps he will believe, as Mr. Gillette does, that this is our only shot, here, now, and that we have to be good to each other because we don't get another chance.

Perhaps he will believe in things we consider bad, or evil. Perhaps he will believe in nigh-saintly ideals.
But there's no reason to think that he needs his parents to teach him to believe in something.

Thats just ego.

*sigh* Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test. What part of that was unclear?

parents take their daughter to the desert and lock her in a hut without food or water. She dies of dehydration and stravation.

The symptoms of untreated type 1 diebetes are being thirsty all the time but no matter how much you drink you are still parched; you just urinate almost as soon as you drink; loss of appetite; loss of weight; increasing weakness, vomiting, headaches; the body breaks itself for sustenance. I don't know what comes after, but the final step is death. In order to survive the body needs insulin.

It seems to me that what we have here is murder, pure and simple. The religious motivation is no different than honor killing of women in some arab societies.

Posted by: moleboy at March 27, 2008 02:20 PM

"if you don't raise a child to believe in something, you're guaranteeing he won't believe in anything."
Well, thats simply not the case.
If you don't teach them to believe in god, yeah, they may grow up not having god or religion.
But there are gazillions of other things worth believing in.
The child will, simply, learn what he believes in.
Perhaps he will believe that helping other people is the greatest thing in the world.
Perhaps he will believe in the free market to make sure that everyone gets what they need.
Perhaps he will believe, as Mr. Gillette does, that this is our only shot, here, now, and that we have to be good to each other because we don't get another chance.

Perhaps he will believe in things we consider bad, or evil. Perhaps he will believe in nigh-saintly ideals.
But there's no reason to think that he needs his parents to teach him to believe in something.

I totally agree, moleboy.

Posted by: Mike at March 27, 2008 08:25 AM

It isn't fair or reasonable, but by definition of "Creator of the Universe," it's perfectly sensible. Your analogy doesn't apply because no man is the creator of everything.

And if a man actually WERE the creator of everything it would be acceptable, then?

By making Job suffer that much when he'd done nothing wrong, God proved just how big of an asshole he was. In my opinion no child should be made to worship such a cruel deity.

You all know Spider-man's feelings about power and responsibility. Well, with ultimate power as God has there should come ultimate responsibility not to abuse it as the Bible says he did.

Rene, I don't think it's silly at all to have an age of consent to indoctrinate a child into a religion. I think it's a damn good idea.

"The 'one family' MMR issue IS true. However that child had an EXCEEDINGLY rare condition, which, almost by definition IS "an isolated case"."

Today's practice is tomorrow barbarism...

"Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD. Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population. "

Taken from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html

20 years ago, something like 1 in 10,000 people were diagnosed with autism. Today, that number is 1 in 150. And for boys, it's cloer to 1 in 100. Certainly some of that is through changes in diagnosis, with more conditions than before being associated with autism. But that alone can't account for such a severe change. 1 in 10,000 is a rare event. One in 150 is normal occurrence.

"These drugs/preservatives are not causing autism."

My research has uncovered hundreds of accounts of people having normal functioning, developing children who within days, sometimes within hours, of receiving their MMR shots begin to regress. Some of these children die. Some "only" turn into a shadow of their former selves. In most instances, these cases are not linked by their doctors as having been caused by the vaccines for the simple reason that the doctors are told that the vaccine doesn't cause these effects.

Think about that. If someone tells you that it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end, are you going to go jumping off buildings thinking falling is safe?

For the majority of people, getting a vaccine shot won't have any negative side effects. Some will experience a mild fever or illness. For others, though, the effects are devastating, even fatal. But people are not made aware of the risks, because if they were, more people wouldn't get them. But the government can't really force you to get vaccinated under normal circumstances. So they resort to misinformation.

Let us suppose for a moment that everything you've said is verifiable through something more than anecdotal evidence.
Wouldn't the smart thing be to get the vaccinations, while also pushing for further research?

You said earlier that you would feel much worse if you got the vaccination and something horrible happened to your child, than if you did nothing and something horrible happened to your child.
I'm assume that this is based on both your activeness in the process, and your suspicion of the vaccine.
In what way is that different than NOT getting medical care for your sick 11 year old girl, because you are suspect of doctors and modern medicine in general?

Hey, thanks Rob.

moleboy, here's the reasoning: because most of the things we vaccinate against are not fatal. they don't result in brain-altering injuries that render your child incapable of ever functioning on their own in society. They don't take away your child's future by locking them in a body that can't filter out the immense amount of information our senses take in. In some cases, we vacinate against something that a child would most likely encounter through sexual contact or unsanitary drug use...at the age of 6 months. What does that say about our government when it recommends that everyday, normal families vaccinate their 6 month old babies against what amounts to an STD or something coming off a shared needle?

The difference is, in the recent case, the girl had symptoms of an illness and needed treatment. In the case of a vaccine, you're taking otherwise healthy babies and injecting them with a foreign substance in the hopes that your actions will make them more resistant against getting sick in the future, should they ever come across the bug you're vaccinating against.

If you look at the history of vaccines, they were devloped to combat an outbreak of polio. Polio is serious, but treatable...it's not generally fatal. And even those that suffer lingering effect generally don't get serious ones. By the time the vaccine was created and cleared for use, the outbreak had already started to wane as treatment and preventative sanitation were implemented. Even without the vaccine, it probably would have dropped below epidemic levels on its own.

Consider this...if an outbreak of something serious were to occur in our area, we'd get our kids vaccinated. Because that's really how vaccines should be used. Vaccination the whole population isn't a precaution, it's a money generator for the manufacturors of the vaccine. The MMR vaccine is a further step toward cost saving by combining product, and inserting an untested preservative in oder to lengthen shelf life.

But I think if you don't raise a child to believe in something, you're guaranteeing he won't believe in anything.

That's a pretty broad brush there. I'd prefer to acknowledge that different people have different beliefs, and that her own beliefs should be whatever works for her and doesn't harm others.

For instance, when the subject of an afterlife comes up (as I'm sure it will ere long -- she already tells us that friends talk to her about pets "going to Kevin" when they die, and it'll probably come up when we scatter my mom's ashes later this spring), I'm leaning towards saying something like "nobody really knows. Some people believe X, some believe Y, some believe Z. We happen not to believe in any of those options, but we could be wrong. What do you think?"

On a different note, I don't think that you're implying that one needs a religion to have a moral code, but I think it'd be very easy to misread your statement that way, particular for those with a vested interest in doing so.

And out of curiosity, since you and Kath are of different faiths, which one is Caroline being brought up in and why? I won't be offended if the answer is "none of your business," but given that you think raising in both is a mistake you must have chosen one...

TWL

With regard to kids being of a certain age and allowed to make their own choices about their faith, the Catholic church has both baptism at birth and confirmation in 8th grade (which would be about age 14). The now-teen aged individual, who would have taken confirmation classes concerning church doctrine and the like, essentially re-affirms the choice made on his or her behalf at infancy-- that he/she accepts the tenants and teachings of the Catholic Church. Many people also choose a "confirmation name", more often than not that of a saint.

I suspect that Baptists and other denominations that baptize people as adults rather than as infants do so for similar reasons: the adult (or teen, as the case may be) understands the choice being given them, while an infant wouldn't.

As to the situation with Madeline Neumann and anyone else in similar circumstances, I have to admit I don't understand how people can refuse medical help and choose to rely on a "miracle" instead. Does it never occur to such people that God is acting through members of the medical profession? Apparently not. Just as in the story PAD related of the man caught in the flood (though the version I first encountered had a woman, who had three separate chances to escape in boats. When she drowned, God said, "lady, I sent three boats!").

In fact, there was an episode of The Fugitive called "Joshua's Kingdom" where Dr. Kimble encounters a young mother played by Kim Darby whose baby needs medical care, but her father, played by Harry Townes, refuses for religious reasons. At one point, Dr. Kimble (a pediatrician by training) confronts him and asks why he (Kimble) happened to come to this particular town and walk down whatever street it was that led to his meeting the young woman. I don’t recall exactly what came next, but he either said something to the effect of “how do you know I wasn’t sent here?” or left it as an unspoken implication behind his previous words. Whichever the case, her father relented and let his grandson receive the needed medical care.

Before Kimble asked the question about how and why he happened to meet these particular people, he angrily demanded to know what sort of god this man would worship that this god would tell him not to get help for his grandson.

I’ve got to say, I agree with Dr. Kimble’s thought process on both counts. How do such people “know” that God didn’t make specific doctors and/or hospitals or the medical profession as a whole available to them as the means by which God would “save” whomever in their family is afflicted?

To coin a phrase, “Lady, I sent you more than 3,000 years of medical knowledge, especially modern medicine.”

And then any “god” that would call on you to ignore modern medicine and essentially hope for the best is beneath contempt.

Should the girl's family face criminal charges for abuse and/or neglect? My gut instinct is to say yes, though I've no idea whether they would face such charges based on their religious beliefs and the laws of their state. The only reason I might hesitate to prosecute where I the county prosecutor, district attorney, whatever, would center on whether they acted (or rather didn't act) in a genuine belief that they were doing the right thing. In short, was it willful neglect?

On the other hand, if the girl was still alive and I was a judge before whom the issue of whether she should receive urgent medical help over her parents' objections was brought, I couldn't see myself siding with the parents. The child's health and well being would take precedence over any religious considerations.

On the other hand, if the situation involved something minor, say the occasional headache, and the family's belief that aspirin or other such pain relievers are unnecessary, and that the body can heal itself, I'd likely rule in their favor. But once the (minor age) family member's life might be in danger as a result of not seeking medical care, that's something else altogether.

Oh, and with regard to confirmation in the Catholic Church, the archbishop or cardinal (I forget which, and the guy in my case has now held both titles) holds out his hand for you to kiss his ring.

I shook his head.

I don’t kiss rings.

If I remember correctly, there was a scene in a Babylon 5 episode in which Sinclair, who’d been educated by Jesuits, said something to the effect that those who are so educated either end up being obedient or impertinent. Or maybe JMS made the observation somewhere; or maybe the quote’s from something unrelated to B5. But one’s thing’s certain: We know which direction I’d already chosen in only the second year of my 10 years of Jesuit education.

Rick

Posted by: moleboy at March 27, 2008 02:20 PM

"if you don't raise a child to believe in something, you're guaranteeing he won't believe in anything."
Well, thats simply not the case.
If you don't teach them to believe in god, yeah, they may grow up not having god or religion.
But there are gazillions of other things worth believing in.
The child will, simply, learn what he believes in.
Perhaps he will believe that helping other people is the greatest thing in the world.
Perhaps he will believe in the free market to make sure that everyone gets what they need.
Perhaps he will believe, as Mr. Gillette does, that this is our only shot, here, now, and that we have to be good to each other because we don't get another chance.

Perhaps he will believe in things we consider bad, or evil. Perhaps he will believe in nigh-saintly ideals.
But there's no reason to think that he needs his parents to teach him to believe in something.

Thats just ego.

Beliefs don't simply appear, nor are they an intrisic part of our DNA (at least, not the type of beliefs we seem to be talking about). They are a product of the interaction of our consciousness and our surrounding, whether environmental or personal. Much of our core beliefs come from our early childhood, as it sets the foundation by which our minds interact with the world. To suggest that parents should actively not teach their children to believe anything, you set up the stereotypical post-hippie situation of children "expressing him/herself" by acting however they feel in public.

Of course, even that is a belief that has been taught ("I can do what I want, and authority figures, i.e. my parents, don't care"). Unless the parents are removed from the child, they and their beliefs will influence the child in numerous ways.

You suggest that "The child will, simply, learn what he believes in." Please explain how this can happen without parental influence.

I suspect that Baptists and other denominations that baptize people as adults rather than as infants do so for similar reasons: the adult (or teen, as the case may be) understands the choice being given them, while an infant wouldn't.

Indeed. The "Believer's Baptism," as it is called, is used for exactly that reason. It requires a conscious declaration of faith from the baptisee. Infant baptism has no such requirement, for obvious reasons.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 27, 2008 03:29 PM

For instance, when the subject of an afterlife comes up (as I'm sure it will ere long -- she already tells us that friends talk to her about pets "going to Kevin" when they die, and it'll probably come up when we scatter my mom's ashes later this spring), I'm leaning towards saying something like "nobody really knows. Some people believe X, some believe Y, some believe Z. We happen not to believe in any of those options, but we could be wrong. What do you think?"

I think that's a great way to do it, Tim.

I've never been a fan of "because I say so." I don't have children and don't want any, but if I did have a kid I would try to explain my reasons as often as I could.

Such as...

"Why do I have to hold your hand when we cross the street?"

"That's because the cars are moving very fast and could hurt us if they crashed into us. Now, as long as we're waiting until that sign says 'walk' to cross then we're probably okay, but there's always the chance that somebody will just ignore the red light and come zooming at us. So if that happens, the car will be moving too fast for me to warn you if you don't see it, and I want to be able to pull you out of the way before it hits you. And if you see a car coming and I don't, then you can pull on my arm so I don't get hit either, okay?"

It takes more time than just telling them not to ask questions and doing what you say, but there's nothing wrong with them asking questions. If they get in the habit of asking questions that's the first step towards an interest in knowledge, and I can't see how that's a bad thing.

With religion, I'm sorry, but I don't approve of any kid being told "there is a God, and this is what he wants you to do, and this is what will happen to you if you don't do it, and it is like that because I say so." That stifles independent thought, discourages them from looking for answers, and in the worse cases turns them into zealots.

PAD,

just curious. Given that you have a mixed faith family, and that you (and/or Kathleen) have stated that Caroline is being raised Catholic, how will you explain things to her when she asks (if she hasn't started already) why everyone in the family doesn't believe the same thing?

Myself, were I parent in such a situation I'd try to explain to the child that different people have different beliefs and that none is the "one true religion" (or we have no real way to know which it is, if there is one, so we should respect them all). But even so, I imagine there would still be "how come this?" and "why not that?" and "But Fr. So-and-So said..." types of questions.

Though, given that I asked such questions myself (and we were a one faith family) as a child, I guess they'd come in any event.

Also, does she take part in Yom Kippur, Passover and other such celebrations? If so, how do you and Kathleen help her understand what's happening without sending her mixed religious messages? If not, do you have any concerns that she might feel unwelcome in that part of your life?

It just seems to me that no matter what someone does when raising a small child in a two-faith household (even if taught to believe in just one of them), it's a bit of a balancing act with regard to how the child regards each faith in those formative years and/or how his or her eventual religious beliefs develop by adolescence.

Rick

Someone made a comment about a Catholic insisting their child only marry another Catholic. That happens, sure, but really isn't any different from Jewish parents who insist their kids marry ... etc. Or parents from well-to-do families who insist their kids only marry someone with a certain bank account. I'm not saying it's a good thing, mind you. Just that it does sort of makes a kind of contextual sense.

>I think if you don't raise a child to believe in something, you're guaranteeing he won't believe in anything.

Perhaps. Though I'm not sure that really is true. My parents, both devout Catholics raised me in that environment, and the first few years of school were spent in a couple of institutions with heavy religions leanings. Fortunately, my parents, being the wise sorts that they were, realized there comes a point where, to become a functional adult, the child needs to start making his own decisions, and what I decided, after much thought, was that I didn't believe in it. Too much of what I'd been taught simply didn't make sense in the cold light of logic. If, therefore, teaching someone something is no garantee that they'll believe in it, how can not specifically teaching someone something be an assuranbce they won't believe in anything thy might learn for themselves?

...Job calls out God to answer for allowing him to be punished in spite of his piety, and God responds that He has discretion as the creator of everything.

Which makes about as much sense as saying "I created my daughter, so I have discretion to beat her as often and as severely as I want." No way. Screw that. That's inexcusable, whether it's coming out of the mouth of a human being or the Creator of the Universe.

It isn't fair or reasonable, but by definition of "Creator of the Universe," it's perfectly sensible. Your analogy doesn't apply because no man is the creator of everything.

And if a man actually WERE the creator of everything it would be acceptable, then?

Yes.

Are you under the impression you don't sustain yourself by consuming life? How much more within your discretion would ending life be with absolutely no dissent against you -- by definition of "Creator of the Universe?"

By making Job suffer that much when he'd done nothing wrong, God proved just how big of an asshole he was. In my opinion no child should be made to worship such a cruel deity.

Alan Watts gave an account of a westerner visiting a Buddhist temple in Japan. I even think it was someone he knew. The westerner noticed the monks bowing to the statue of the the Buddha.

The Nirvana of Buddhism is taken from nirvana the Sanskrit word for nothing. In Buddhism, there is no reward for obedience to diving will, and no punishment for disobedience. The westerner realized that the monks bowing to the statues were literally meaningless to their religion, and approached one of them and told him so. He said he would just as soon spit at the Buddha. The monk replied, "you spits, I bows."

Uncertainty is omnipresent in joy and despair. All progress moves the horizon further away. Pray, don't pray, however you cope with the uncertainty of life, there is no escape from it either way.

Dante said the hallelujah of the angels is the laughter of the universe. Do whatever the hell is best for you.

Bobb, let me make it clear that I know you have your kids best interests at heart, no less than I do my own. That said, I have some differences with your views on vaccinations.

If Thimerosal in vaccines is a cause of autism, why haven't rates of autism dropped as it is being phased out? In fact, advocates claim that autism rates are skyrocketing, even as less Thimerosal is being used. Are there any good studies that link the two? I know there are anecdotal accounts but there are plenty of them regarding the power of prayer, horoscopes and homeopathic remedies as well. But I don't know of any actual well performed studies or experiments that showed them to work. Anecdotal experiences should never be dismissed out of hand but there should be some hard scientific evidence to back it up if they are to be of value.

What does that say about our government when it recommends that everyday, normal families vaccinate their 6 month old babies against what amounts to an STD or something coming off a shared needle?

Are you referring to the Hepatitis A vaccine? Or something else? Hepatitis is easy to catch from many other ways besides sex and drugs (and rock and roll). I narrowly escaped being put at serious risk when a waitress at Joe's Crab Shack infected a bunch of people--luckily, we ate there the day before she showed up sick. Wasn't that the one that made a few hundred people sick from green onions a few years back?

BTW, I'd definitely vaccinate the kids if you ever travel out of the country. A whole new ball game out there once you leave the US and Canada (ok, my Luxembourgian friends, I'm not talking about you, calm down.)

If you look at the history of vaccines, they were devloped to combat an outbreak of polio. Polio is serious, but treatable...it's not generally fatal. And even those that suffer lingering effect generally don't get serious ones. By the time the vaccine was created and cleared for use, the outbreak had already started to wane as treatment and preventative sanitation were implemented. Even without the vaccine, it probably would have dropped below epidemic levels on its own.

Actually, I think they were first used to combat smallpox. And I think you're seriously underestimating the danger of polio. If it weren't that serious it's hard to understand the celebrations that followed Salk's discovery. Given the high level of infectiousness of the virus (in some places the number of those infected approaches 100%) even a mere 1% of cases that become the more serious paralytic disease represents a lot of people. There is no cure.

At the rate we're going it may soon be perfectly safe to skip the polio vaccine entirely, as it appears that the disease may soon follow smallpox into extinction--but let's keep in mind that this milestone would have only been possible with vaccines. The fact that the only diseases we have eradicated are those with vaccines should tell you something about their effectiveness.

But people are not made aware of the risks, because if they were, more people wouldn't get them. But the government can't really force you to get vaccinated under normal circumstances. So they resort to misinformation.

Why do you think the government is doing this? What are they gaining?

I don't think you can just say "money". Vaccines are a pain in the ass to produce and the profit rate is low. Nobody is getting rich on $10 flu shots and the few companies that bother to make them end up throwing out a good percentage. That's why they don't make enough, which shows up during bad years (and is why your plan to immunize the family during an epidemic may be flawed).

Given the very real possibility of a global flu pandemic I'd urge everyone to at least consider getting a yearly flu shot. They don't always work but if we ever get a repeat of the 1918 monster...it's gonna be horrific beyond belief.

Anyway, I respect your thinking on this but please keep a healthy dose of skepticism in mind. An awful lot of these anti-vaccine sites seem to have a very unscientific agenda going on.

Why do I have to hold your hand when we cross the street?"

Your explanation is great, Rob, but speaking as a parent, there are also times when "because I said so" is necessary for time/safety reasons. I always try to explain things to her after the fact if for some reason I can't do it beforehand, but if she's about to step off the curb unescorted you don't take time to explain -- you grab her.

TWL

" Polio is serious, but treatable...it's not generally fatal. And even those that suffer lingering effect generally don't get serious ones."

Umm, post-polio syndrome - affects older people who contracted poliomyelitis when they were children? Polio a.k.a "Infantile paralysis"?

Dustin
How can a child develop beliefs without the influence of parents?
Well, first off, I'm not advocating that parents not try to instill their values in their children.
That said, unless you raise your child in a bubble, literally, then you are but one of a long list of influences on your child.
Here's a few
1. friends
2. teachers
3. personal experiences
4. media
5. physics

A parent choosing (somehow) to not pass on any kind of belief system will not end up with some sort of automaton.

Funny, we hear all this talk of how video games and movies and TV are taking kids away from their parents values. Or those kids who are 'bad influences'. It seems odd to think that, in the absence of parental teaching, that kids wouldn't use these same sources.

again, not advocating this, just saying that you don't raise a child in a box.

Very well said Peter.

Peter David: I don't see how deciding what religion to raise your child in is any different than deciding what moral code one is going to instill in one's child or what political leaning you're going to teach him is the preferred one in your house.
Luigi Novi: If the religion in question were composed entirely of principles that had secular uses and did not lend themselves to divisiveness and abuse ("Don't cause others pain"; "Don't steal"), then I would agree. But if they do not, and incorporate things like "Don't avail your child of proper scientifically-validated medicine", "You belong to God's chosen group", "Thou shall have no other gods before me", "Cover your women in burkas against their will", "Everyone not in your group is going to hell", "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live", "You may keep slaves", "lop off a part of an infant's genitals", or "Kill all the infidels", then I'd say that there's a big difference.

As for teaching him a political leaning, I'd say that that's wrong too. It is better to teach children principles, and maybe even explain why you think your political leaning fulfills those principles. But ultimately, he/she should be encouraged to see what those of other leanings have to say too, as they might have some good ideas, and leave it up to the child.

Peter David: It doesn't mean the kid won't go a different way when he gets older. But I think if you don't raise a child to believe in something, you're guaranteeing he won't believe in anything.
Luigi Novi: Sure. But what does teaching him to "believe in anything" have to do with religion? I assume you're not implying/saying that in order to believe in "something", you have to raise him/her to believe in gods, right?

Gunter: Very well said Peter.
Luigi Novi: Gunter, are you Peter's father? (I remember your first name being mentioned somewhere, perhaps in the Comics Buyers Guide story on Peter's second wedding. If so, it's good to see you here. You've raised a fine son, sir, and you did a fine job by taking Peter to those movies for your review-writing, and influencing him through your own work as a reporter to become a fine writer! Kudos!

I always try to explain things to her after the fact if for some reason I can't do it beforehand, but if she's about to step off the curb unescorted you don't take time to explain -- you grab her.

Yeah, that makes sense. As long as you eventually do give them an explanation instead of conditioning them to be unquestioningly obedient, because I think people should always ask questions.

Posted by: Mike at March 27, 2008 06:01 PM

Yes.

Are you under the impression you don't sustain yourself by consuming life? How much more within your discretion would ending life be with absolutely no dissent against you -- by definition of "Creator of the Universe?"

Look, Mike, there is a big difference between ending the life of another creature and tormenting that creature. I don't eat (or "consume the life of") any animal that I believe was treated inhumanely, which means that I'm almost a vegetarian at this point because I don't trust slaughterhouses to be humane. I don't want to tell anybody else what to do; rather, I'm saying that it's stupid to equate my "consumption of life" with what God did to Job.

There is a big difference between a quick, humane kill and living for a long time in agony. One big reason why people are so justifiably outraged over this particular case is because the girl did not die peacefully in her sleep or anything--no, what happened to her was the sort of slow, excruciating death that I would not wish on anybody but the most sadistic individuals in existence. Perhaps not even on them.

If God had just killed Job, this wouldn't make me so upset. If people who didn't get into heaven simply ceased to exist instead of going to hell, I wouldn't be so upset about that either. But in both cases we have God either personally torturing a good man or allowing people to be tortured forever (which NOBODY deserves IMO), and that's a level of cruelty that absolutely sickens me.

I am not going to say "Oh, he's God, he made the universe and therefore it's not my place to say he's wrong." I absolutely will say he's wrong, and I fervently hope that a being capable of such evil is nothing more than a myth, because I don't want my ultimate fate to be in its hands.

"if you don't raise a child to believe in something, you're guaranteeing he won't believe in anything."

Well, thats simply not the case. If you don't teach them to believe in god, yeah, they may grow up not having god or religion. But there are gazillions of other things worth believing in.

* sigh *

Go back. Reread my post to which you responded. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Done?

Okay. Now: Notice that in the sentence preceding the one you yanked out of context, I specifically said that choosing a religion to teach a child is no different than teaching them about a moral code or politics. I was speaking in broad strokes about the notion that parents impart all manner of values to their children.

And you turned around and distorted the meaning into my asserting that if you don't teach your children about God, they will have no values. A ridiculously untenable position that I never took.

A little reading comprehension, guys. That's all I'm asking.

PAD

just curious. Given that you have a mixed faith family, and that you (and/or Kathleen) have stated that Caroline is being raised Catholic, how will you explain things to her when she asks (if she hasn't started already) why everyone in the family doesn't believe the same thing?

I suppose it depends upon how old Caroline is when the subject comes up. Children readily accept the reality they're presented for a good long time before it occurs to them to question it. Frankly, I don't think it really amounts to much more than, "Well, there was this good and wise man named Joshua bar Joseph, and many people call him Jesus, and mommy believes God was his daddy and I believe that God wasn't his daddy, but either way he was very learned and helped a lot of people."

Myself, were I parent in such a situation I'd try to explain to the child that different people have different beliefs and that none is the "one true religion"

Which is great if you're explaining it to a philosophy major. When it comes to parenting, however, I don't see the need to overexplain. Your explanation is the equivalent of, "Daddy, where do babies come from?" "Well, honey, it begins with a man being in a state of arousal..."

Also, does she take part in Yom Kippur, Passover and other such celebrations? If so, how do you and Kathleen help her understand what's happening without sending her mixed religious messages? If not, do you have any concerns that she might feel unwelcome in that part of your life?

She doesn't really go with me to services at the synagogue unless it's something that's very kid oriented (Purim, for instance.) She participates in the Passover sedar, however. Why not? The Last Supper was a sedar.

PAD

bobb alfred---

You did right by refusing the vaccinations, although most people will disagree.

Parents have had the right to refuse vaccinations on moral grounds for decades, but most don't know that.

On the subject of autism itself, some babies go through several rounds of vaccinations before they have a reaction; some on the earlier rounds. If it was a specific vaccination that was causing autism, the pattern would be obvious. The only thing the vaccinations had in common was thimerisal.

Some people argue that VACCINES ARE SAFE. Bulltish. Most drugs aren't safe.

INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS---don't work very well, and to even have a chance of making them work, they are re-designed every year and you have to get a new shot every year. VITAMIN D has recently been discovered to prevent influenza. 2000 IU (International Units) daily seems to be the proper amount. Cost is around $30 per year. If you are the type of person who gets the flu every 3 years, the Vitamin D will pay for itself when you don't have to miss any work because of being ill. Plus Vitamin D is essential to proper absorption of Calcium. Prevent the flu and help build strong bones all in a dosage smaller than an aspirin.

...Job calls out God to answer for allowing him to be punished in spite of his piety, and God responds that He has discretion as the creator of everything.

Which makes about as much sense as saying "I created my daughter, so I have discretion to beat her as often and as severely as I want." No way. Screw that. That's inexcusable, whether it's coming out of the mouth of a human being or the Creator of the Universe.

It isn't fair or reasonable, but by definition of "Creator of the Universe," it's perfectly sensible. Your analogy doesn't apply because no man is the creator of everything.

And if a man actually WERE the creator of everything it would be acceptable, then?

Yes.

Are you under the impression you don't sustain yourself by consuming life? How much more within your discretion would ending life be with absolutely no dissent against you -- by definition of "Creator of the Universe?"

Look, Mike, there is a big difference between ending the life of another creature and tormenting that creature.

You mean punishment -- of which throwing someone in jail qualifies -- or benefiting from anyone's incarceration? How much more within your discretion would punishing anyone be with absolutely no dissent against you?

I am not going to say "Oh, he's God, he made the universe and therefore it's not my place to say he's wrong."

Did I not say it was unfair and unreasonable?

Okay. Now: Notice that in the sentence preceding the one you yanked out of context, I specifically said that choosing a religion to teach a child is no different than teaching them about a moral code or politics. I was speaking in broad strokes about the notion that parents impart all manner of values to their children.

Okay. It's clear at this point what you didn't mean, but not quite as clear what you did mean.

When you say "they won't believe in anything", do you mean that they won't believe in the existence of certain things, such as God? Or that they won't believe in causes, such as freeing Tibet? Or that they won't believe in something else?

Finally, sorry, but that statement is easily misinterpreted. I don't think he "distorted" your words, I think he really thought you were saying something you weren't because of the way you phrased it.

On the subject of autism itself, some babies go through several rounds of vaccinations before they have a reaction; some on the earlier rounds. If it was a specific vaccination that was causing autism, the pattern would be obvious. The only thing the vaccinations had in common was thimerisal.

Alan, there's a fallacy there: you're automatically assuming that the autism is directly related to the vaccinations at all. Correlation does not imply cause, and IMO the evidence for a correlation is still a lot further on the side of "anecdotal" than I'd like.

Again, this is not to disparage Bobb's choice -- while it's not the one we've made with our daughter, he's certainly thought it through. The fact that I disagree with his conclusion is just that: a fact, not a judgement.

TWL

"VITAMIN D has recently been discovered to prevent influenza. 2000 IU (International Units) daily seems to be the proper amount. Cost is around $30 per year. If you are the type of person who gets the flu every 3 years, the Vitamin D will pay for itself when you don't have to miss any work because of being ill. Plus Vitamin D is essential to proper absorption of Calcium. Prevent the flu and help build strong bones all in a dosage smaller than an aspirin."

10 mins/day sun exposure will supply yourt Vitamin D requirements - it's manufactured in your skin in the presence of sunlight.

"VITAMIN D has recently been discovered to prevent influenza. 2000 IU (International Units) daily seems to be the proper amount. Cost is around $30 per year. If you are the type of person who gets the flu every 3 years, the Vitamin D will pay for itself when you don't have to miss any work because of being ill. Plus Vitamin D is essential to proper absorption of Calcium. Prevent the flu and help build strong bones all in a dosage smaller than an aspirin."

10 mins/day sun exposure will supply your Vitamin D requirements - it's manufactured in your skin in the presence of sunlight.

"VITAMIN D has recently been discovered to prevent influenza. 2000 IU (International Units) daily seems to be the proper amount. Cost is around $30 per year. If you are the type of person who gets the flu every 3 years, the Vitamin D will pay for itself when you don't have to miss any work because of being ill. Plus Vitamin D is essential to proper absorption of Calcium. Prevent the flu and help build strong bones all in a dosage smaller than an aspirin."

10 mins/day sun exposure will supply your Vitamin D requirements - it's manufactured in your skin in the presence of sunlight.

Sorry for the triple post, my machine is doing strange things.....doobeedooodoo doobeedoodoo.

Extra to what I said anyway, the u/v in the sunlight also kills virus particles - mucks up their DNA.

I haven't seen anything yet that suggests that we can even say with certainty that vitamin D prevents influenza, much less argue about how much is needed. It's an interesting hypothesis and would explain the seasonal variations in influenza outbreaks but until there is a controlled scientific study to compare rates of infection among those who are taking high dosages of the vitamin and those who are taking the vaccine or nothing at all, it's way too early to make these claims. I recall much the same being said about vitamin c and colds, claims that haven't stood up well in the light of research.

All I can say is how awful I feel for the little girl. No child should suffer like that. It just breaks my heart...
I'm so hurt by this, I can't even get angry at the parents. None of the other points matter right now. I just can't stop crying...

Me: "Myself, were I parent in such a situation I'd try to explain to the child that different people have different beliefs and that none is the "one true religion..."

PAD: "Which is great if you're explaining it to a philosophy major. When it comes to parenting, however, I don't see the need to overexplain. Your explanation is the equivalent of, "Daddy, where do babies come from?" "Well, honey, it begins with a man being in a state of arousal..."

I don't think your analogy works. I don't see my hypothetical statement (or the alternative I provided parenthetically that since we don't know which is the one true religion we should respect them all) as "over-explaining." Nor more so than your hypothetical answer would be. Either way, the child in question will ask most likely ask "Why?" or "How come?", leading to a re-casting of the answer.

What's more, I was more or less summarizing the point I'd try to get across, rather than the actual words I'd use. Though if those words were to pop into my head should a child to ask me such a question, that might be how I'd answer. I guess it'd depend on whether I felt I should give an immediate reply or could take a moment to formulate one.

But anyway, suppose I did say: "Different people have different beliefs, but none is the one true religion."? I might very well get this back:

"Why believe in something if it's not true?" or "How do you whether it's true or not?"

Likewise, were you to answer a question from Caroline with your statement about Joshua bar Joseph and how he helped people even though you and Kathleen have different beliefs about whether God was his father, would it surprise you if she asked why? It seems a natural enough for a kid to ask, "why does Mommy believe that?" or "Why don't you believe that?"

On the other hand, sometimes kids can surprise you with how they react to an answer you might think would lead to more questions. About a decade back, when my young cousins were big into Shania Twain, they were listening to a particular album one day. One song had a line about PMS. The eldest of these girls, then 7 or 8, asked, "what's PMS?"

I said, "it's something that happens when you're older.", half expecting her to follow up with something like, "how much older?" or "But what is it?"

Her response?

"Oh." And she ran off and played with her sisters and cousins. Apparently, the fact that it's something that happens when she's older (and I don't know whether she understood that its exclusive to women or assumed that anyone could have it) and thus wasn't anything she needed to concern herself with at 7 or 8 satisfied her.

So who knows? When it comes time to explain to Caroline the differing views of Jesus you and Kathleen have, she might pepper you with more questions, or she might say, "oh", and run off and play.

Rick

Regarding my first post in this thread, that should have been, "I shook his hand."

Damn. I just noticed that. And I must have re-read and fine-tuned that entry at least a half a dozen times before I clicked the "post" button.

Stupid, stupid me creatures.

Rick

The Catholic church has had a lot of trouble recently with the shaking of heads.

>Extra to what I said anyway, the u/v in the sunlight also kills virus particles - mucks up their DNA.

And, according to some, risk skin cancer. If they don't get you one way ... 8-)

As for Coil's comments, of course one needs repeated shots. Two reasons:

1 - they help keep the immune system exercised and strong,

2 - viruses mutate all the time so what works against them one year won't necessarily do the job the next and one needs t be covered for that version, too.

ARGH! Nothing gets me madder than when people blame vaccines for autism. I have more than 20 years experience working with hard-core autism, with more than 100 different cases. Autism is committed to the neural wiring in the 21-28th day of gestation, LONG before people know they're pregnant, let alone born and vaccinated. You can't "catch" it in one fast incidence. No. Does not happen. If there's a coincidence of vaccine and onset of behavior, it may simply be a trigger that made the parent finally wake up and admit the problem they'd been missing signals on all along.

I can, however, give you horror stories of the disabled kids I've worked with who were the result of some of those vaccinatable diseases.

My kids are vaccinated against anything they can possibly be vaccinated against, and as early as 1990 I was pleading for smallpox vaccine, and told even for cold cash it just wasn't available; fast forward 10 years and that lack of vaccine was suddenly a real worry. We as a people have little cultural memory of what damage and fear and death polio, measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, and meningitis caused just 50 years ago. Do I think the current schedule of vaccines is too much at once? Absolutely. Things definitely need to be spaced better, but that's a different fight. Best of luck to your kids, Bobb, but that's a gamble I myself would never take.

PREFACE: I make no judgments here on whether someone believes in a God or not. Whatever someone believes is fine with me, as long as they're not hurting anyone else.

Now to business. Someone noted, "Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test. What part of that was unclear?"

The part where the lord God demands the life of an eleven year old child - and not just her life, but an ending of that life in excruciating agony, horrid confusion, and the (probable) comprehension by that eleven year old that there are doctors and medicines - but Mommy and Daddy DIDN'T WANT her to go to a doctor, DIDN'T WANT her to get medicine, DIDN'T WANT anything that could heal her - except for an imaginary being (to an eleven year old, at least) Who probably wanted her in such agony.

But the little girl could take comfort in the fact that this God probably wanted her to die so that she could be with Him. After all, that's why God kills so many children, right? [/sarcasm]

If there is a God, he provides us with the [i]tools[/i] for miracles - or if there is no God, such tools are created by men, and miracles still occur.

As PAD noted, we get radio warnings, boats, and helicopters. There are medicines, there are doctors and practitioners, there are tools and there is knowledge. Should it REALLY be expected that God would directly intervene with a miracle by a celestial gigantic hand, haloed in light, coming from a glowing cloud? Or is it more realistic to ascribe to His motives that He has ALREADY worked his miracle - there are people who KNOW what to do when someone is sick, and God's intent is for people to take advantage of the miracles that way?

If we don't take advantage of these miracles - in the form in which they are offered to us, and especially if we don't use them for those for whom we are responsible - then are the consequences STILL God's will?

If one believes in predestination, then nothing anyone says to them will ever change their mind about "the will of God", and such people are free to do whatever they desire - since, according to their beliefs, no action occurs of their own desire.

If one believes in free will, then every action one takes has consequences - even if one believes in God.

And letting a little girl die in an era of God-given medical miracles... well, that's criminal no matter how one looks at it.

Eric L. Sofer

Tim Lynch,

Almost all the reported cases of autism state that the child was normal, then the shots were given and there were major changes.

20,000 cases a year may only be anecdotal to some, but is definitely close enough to be called the truth.

Megan of the triple posts (I tease, I tease),

Agreed that one gets Vitamin D from sunlight. One needs a large area of skin exposed to get enough in just a few minutes. Just the arms and face is not enough exposed skin.

In addition, I challenge you to get enough sun here in southeast Michigan, where we are shoveling 2-4 inches of snow this morning. Or perhaps Seattle where it rains quite often. In some years, bathing suit season ends here around mid-September. Even most of the boaters have their boats out of the water before October 1. That is why it is best to just take Vitamin D orally here in the Great Lakes states and other not-so-sunny places.

Susan O, Bill Mulligan, Tim Lynch, and others---

I realize many are skeptical about the role of vaccinations re: autism. I ask that you go read the following article:

"On Tuesday, March 11, a conference call was held between vaccine safety officials at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, several leading experts in vaccine safety research, and executives from America's Health Insurance Plans..."

In the article, it is suggested that vaccines DO play a part.

http://tinyurl.com/2cepy9

I also realize my one lone voice isn't going to change your opinions, but please, at least read the article. Thank you.

If we don't take advantage of these miracles - in the form in which they are offered to us, and especially if we don't use them for those for whom we are responsible - then are the consequences STILL God's will?

If one believes in predestination, then nothing anyone says to them will ever change their mind about "the will of God", and such people are free to do whatever they desire - since, according to their beliefs, no action occurs of their own desire.

If one believes in free will, then every action one takes has consequences - even if one believes in God.

And letting a little girl die in an era of God-given medical miracles... well, that's criminal no matter how one looks at it.

There are ads in newspapers accepting money to chlorinate polluted water in third world countries while we keep money in bank accounts. Going by what you say, you're dragging yourself across your floor like Liam Neeson going on about how your vacuum cleaner could have saved a schoolhouse full of children somewhere.

The British navy sat on the knowledge 3 spoonfuls of lemon juice a day could have held-off the scurvy that was killing maybe ¼-½ of a ship's crew at a time -- for 150 years. That's 5 generations as we know it today that they did nothing.

I'm not trying to excuse these parents from criminal prosecution. But the notion of prosecuting them as some kind of last obstacle to living an ideal is kind of chilling. Something like that is usually the excuse for the most insane intolerances.

Likewise, were you to answer a question from Caroline with your statement about Joshua bar Joseph and how he helped people even though you and Kathleen have different beliefs about whether God was his father, would it surprise you if she asked why? It seems a natural enough for a kid to ask, "why does Mommy believe that?" or "Why don't you believe that?"

I'm raising my fourth child. Very little a child says can surprise me at this point. The odds are that if she asked that--presuming she was fairly young--I doubt I'd need much beyond a simple shrug and say, "Because we don't. If everybody believed the same things, life would be pretty boring, wouldn't it. What do YOU believe, honey?"

PAD

Alan,

Almost all the reported cases of autism state that the child was normal, then the shots were given and there were major changes.

And as I said, correlation does not imply cause. There's reporting bias, self-selection effects, and everything else that can magically "inflate" an effect.

I'm open to the possibility of a connection and certainly think such things should be checked out, but the number of urban-legend horror stories out there connecting object X to condition Y (antiperspirants and breast cancer, for instance) always makes me extremely skeptical about those claims, particularly when it's presented in a scare-tactic kind of way. (I'm not saying you're doing that, but lots of people out there do.)

I appreciate the article you forwarded, but an article on the Huffington Post does not, alas, qualify as something I'd consider peer-reviewed and really definitive.

This article at http://www.healthandenvironment.org/autism/peer_reviewed
seems a bit less inflammatory and more balanced. They're actually including references, for one thing.

I've never taught kids with full-fledged autism, but I have taught kids with Asperger's, and there are definitely a lot of ways in which their path is extremely difficult. Believe me, if I thought this connection was likely to be true I'd be jumping up and down demanding that actions be taken. I remain unconvinced.

TWL

Susan O, your decision to vaccinate your kids is based on your experience, and made after reasoned thought. You are aware of the dangers and risks, weighed them, and made a choice.

Bear in mind, I don't go around telling anyone not to get their kids vaccinated. I don't tell them their kids are going to develop autism, or anything else. What I tell them is they need to do more than listen to what their pediatricians tell them, and do some research on their own, THEN decide. Actually, this is something everyone should do any time they get advice from their doctor. All you need to do is review the news for a week, and you'll see some instance of a medical prediction that turned out wrong, or see how some line of thought in the medical world has turned around or is being debated. Doctors aren't mechanics...every body is different, and every medical decision should be made by the individual (or their parent/guardian) and only after as much information as possible is gathered.

Bill, I didn't know vaccines went back that far...I forget which Museum we were at had a big polio exhibit that made it sound like that era was the beginning of the vaccine. But looking at the history, you can see an interesting change over the past 2 decades. Prior to that, vaccines that were sought after were for truly serious, dangerous, and fatal things. I'd include polio in that,