Religious Freedom: How Far?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
—First Amendment to the US Constitution

Freedom of religion is a much-cherished ideal in the United States. In fact, it is something that is just taken for granted; no one even questions whether we should have freedom to choose our own religion or not. Jews can worship as freely as Muslims and Hindus and Bhuddists and Christians. Orthodox and Catholic Christians can worship openly and freely in a largely Protestant country. And that guy who wants to worship a rock in his backyard? Well, his neighbors will certainly look at him a little oddly, but there’s no law stopping him.

Now, let me take a quick moment to note that I, for one, do not believe that all religions are equally true. I am a member of the Orthodox Church because I believe that, of all religions and denominations, it alone has the fullness of the Truth, and there is nothing to be gained by compromising that belief. However wrong I may believe others to be, and whatever I may say to them in conversation about their and my beliefs, I fully support their freedom to worship as they see best. I would not want that freedom to be taken from me.

However, every so often, a case comes up where the question must be asked: how far does religious freedom go? I came across such a case the other day in an article posted to Twitter by one of the people I follow. This article was: Trials for Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine

In summary, an 11-year-old girl has died of complications as a result of untreated diabetes. Her parents had not taken her to a doctor because the church they are members of teaches that “God alone has the ability to heal” (as the article states). Other cases of children dieing of similarly treatable, or even curable, diseases because of their parents religious beliefs about medicine are mentioned in the article. In this case, the parents have been arrested, and are facing 25 years in jail for “reckless endangerment.”

Since I read that article, I’ve had mixed feelings about the case. On the one hand, it saddens me to hear of the harm that is be caused by wrong beliefs. And, certainly, those who believe that we should not seek medical help when necessary are mistaken and deceived. I know of nothing to indicate that God requires this of us.

At the same time, should the parents be punished for this? What they did was foolish, but, given what little information I have about the case, it sounds like they did so in good faith (pun not intended). It sounds like they did what they believed they should do for their daughter: they prayed for her and commended her to God. Had they not believed that they shouldn’t bring their daughter to the doctor, they may well have had her there at the first opportunity.

The parents responded to the court the charges violate their First Amendment rights, that the government is taking a role in matters of religion. So, ultimately, the case is about how far freedom of religion goes. Is freedom of religion guarunteed even to those who cause harm to themselves or others by their practices? Certainly, one could say that Muslim terrorists are acting according to their religion in their attacks (and before anyone comes complaining about that statement, I just note that, whatever other Muslims may believe, certainly many if not all of the terrorists would argee with what I just said), but we would say that’s not a valid argument, because they’re killing and harming people who have nothing to do with their religion. But what about this case, when the harm is within the family? What if the daughter, although 11, agreed with her parents (something we don’t know)? Was it them her choice, or are her parents still responsible?

And, then, there’s this statement from the judge: “The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief, but not necessarily conduct.” Honestly, though I understand the context of the statement, such a precedent scares me.

I don’t really know what to think about this. Obviously, we should pray for all involved in this case. At the same time, as citizens of the United States, who vote for their leaders and (supposedly) have some say in the laws that are passed, it would seem like we should have an opinion on this. So, what thoughts might anyone out there have about this?