A Sad Case of Church and State

Daniel Hauser is a thirteen years young boy dying of cancer. His mother has taken him and fled the area, probably the country, to avoid any more chemotherapy. The treatment was taking a serious toll on the boy, and the mother wanted to try a special Native American angle instead of the hospitals (this was a very brief summary; you can get a better idea of details from here).

These are the key points of this sad tale that I want to focus on at the moment: (1) the mother has rejected more chemotherapy for her son in favor of a stated religious reason, (2) the father disagrees, and (3) the state court ruled Daniel must undergo the chemo treatment or he will be taken out of the custody of his parents temporarily until the ordeal is over (source here). With respect to the third point, I understand that already extant state laws say parents must give their children proper medical care, that “alternative and complementary health care methods aren’t enough.” But we can go past that for this particular post, giving this particular perspective on this situation. State statutes are going to be different when you go around the country. The key is the court decided what was truly best for the child and no religious belief could super-cede the state.

And what have I been saying for years? The Church needs to stay out of government; and the government needs to stay out of the Church.

Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., wrote an opinion piece titled “Courts have the right to insist on chemo: Government should make sure kids with lethal but treatable ills get care.” In that piece, found here, Dr. Caplan said,

There are those who argue that no one has any business telling Colleen Hauser how to deal with her son. Put aside the fact that her husband does not agree. Should families be free to do whatever they want with the children in the name of religious or spiritual belief?

The moral answer is no.

The moral answer is no? So the state has every right to trump over the family whenever they deem it necessary? If the state does not like someone’s use of alternative medicines (e.g. a God-fearing and obeying chiropractor who has done more medical good for my family within a couple of months than western-traditional doctors and practices were able to do over several years), they not only have the right to but also the moral obligation to correct us and get our kids “real” health care? The slippery-slope begins.

We recognize that parents can and sadly sometimes do abuse or neglect their children. What is a bit harder to recognize is that they can do so in the name of religious or spiritual beliefs.

Children have been told at age 10 or 11 that their religion demands they be married off to church elders. Children have been seen by their parents as possessed by demons and beaten within an inch of their lives. Children can be told that it is God’s will that they die miserable and suffering from diabetes, meningitis or a twisted intestinal tract. Many have undergone excruciating deaths.

In all of these cases, parents are doing what they think best according to their religious or spiritual views. But that does not make these actions any the less abuse of innocent and dependent children.. . .

I have no need to talk about these words. They’re a smokescreen which any simple ready will gouge right through. Let’s move on to something worthwhile:

. . . The government absolutely has a role to play in protecting kids in these circumstances. Not by kicking in the door of the parent’s house, but, by having a local court review the facts, hear testimony and then make a decision about limiting parental and religious freedom.

There we go: “kicking in the door.” Exactly where the slippery-slope is headed. Maybe not literally kicking, as in foot to door (given the police use big old rams these days), but the state will come knocking. If this continues, the state will be dictating exactly what we can do medically with our kids. This already exists to some extent with WIC. There is certainly some good to WIC, but when a mother signs up for their aid, she is subject to their rules and regulations which include the health of herself and her children. Think I’m exaggerating? Think I’m using the same incendiary fear tactics or those evangelical Christian groups giving materials to local churches, telling the people they and their leaders will be thrown in prison for hate crimes if they preach homosexuality is a sin? Maybe.

Or, maybe not. Let’s keep reading a bit more of what Dr. Caplan had to say. He went on to denounce the critics, those who say such a court ruling steps on religious freedom.

Let’s knock off all the rhetoric flying around about the government crushing parental rights and religious freedom in cases like that of Daniel Hauser. It is only after a court hearing by an impartial judge who knows local values that a court order might be written to override parental authority. Anyone who looks at the 52-page decision of the judge who ordered treatment for Daniel will realize that critics who yak on about cops kicking in the door of helpless parents trying to follow their religion are engaging in nothing but irresponsible hyperbole.

The argument is not that this specific case is the end of all religious freedom, even if only with respect to health care choice. This is merely another piece of straw on a camel that might need a spinal adjustment in the near future. Let’s go back in time a little bit, because I think that will help with how we look at this.

About fourteen or fifteen years ago (mid-1990′s), I was sitting near the back row of a high school meeting room at 8 o’clock at night, with nearly 500 people. The event was a regularly scheduled school district board meeting. The reason why 450 more people than usual were in attendance? Well, there was a very minor issue going around having to do with adding a couple of words to the rules and regs, allowing for the protection already given to race, color, and religion to now extend to “and sexual preference.”

(Let me pause for a second here. What I am now talking about, the homosexual issue, has nothing to do with my particular stand or beliefs on homosexuality or homosexual marriage. None of what I say right now should be taken in any direction on that issue. Back to it then.)

The room was split close to 60-40 on the issue. Those in favor of adding the language wanted protection for homosexuals. Those opposed to the language argued not against protecting homosexuals (they adamantly stated no person should be bullying, razzing, hazing, etc., any school kid because of their sexual preference), but that adding those specific words would start a drastic change in the (up to that point) mostly conservative educational system. At that time the arguments flew around that, if the language was added, within a few years the schools would be teaching homosexuality as a norm, homosexual marriage as a should-be-norm, variant sexual possibilities, have libraries stock homosexual books, and oppress those who said homosexuality was wrong.

The school board decided (3-2) to add the language. In their decisions they said very clearly that the opposition arguments were ludicrous. Adding the few words was not going to turn things around in that way, open some Pandora’s Box, and so on and so forth. They said the arguments were illogical and they were going to side with protecting “all” kids.

I was still in high school at the time. Over the next two years I noticed no change. But then a third year came along, and we started to hear about books being added to the library. Then there were some mandatory additions to the curricula. Then some of this, and some more of that. Before we knew it, homosexuality was more than a norm; it was being forced onto many unsuspecting public school families. We looked back to that board meeting and thought, “Those opposition folks were right.” And regardless of anyone’s take on the issue of homosexuality, what those folks said would happen in the coming years in fact happened.

The same goes when we come back to Daniel’s case. As trivial and independent as this situation may seem right now, in time we will see the ramifications of those sentiments and rulings. As Christianity continues to evolve in the US–hopefully the trend continues away from the majority mainstream evangelical Christendom (that I would love to see the end of anyway, but that’s for a different post) and towards the community-minded missional Christian groups–there tends to be growth in seeking alternative means for living: medicine, food, income. There’s growth in the agrarian lifestyle, medicines and treatments not tainted by what could be summed up as “evil” (e.g. aborted fetal cells used in our vaccines, medicines tested on animals, genetically modified foods that kill off more than bugs, cloned animal meat). That way of Christianity is very unsettling, unpleasant, heretical, or even demonic for a good portion of conservative evangelical Christianity today. But, the state is not necessarily a big fan either.

Honestly, how far away is this country from making children’s vaccinations absolutely mandatory, disregarding any objections on the basis of religion or philosophy? But, how can any Christian openly advocate giving their children vaccines created with aborted baby cells?

But, will my family and I live in the fear of what the state might do? Not a chance. We don’t do it now. We believe strongly in a separation of Church and state. The Lord is our council and who we must ultimately answer to. Our lives, our religious practices, what we believe is right and wrong, will not be dictated by any government, whether that government is a republic like the USA or an oppressive communist like China.

All in all, don’t live in fear of what the government may or may not do here in the US. Certainly, we have our convictions within our communities. We have roles to play in our communities, towns, cities, so forth. There are ways we can make in impact politically without going to bed with the government. But, we are the Church. We must be the Church first, and last. At no time can we ever stop being the Church. At no time can we lay down the cross. But do not think for a second that being the Church, being Christians, is supposed to be easy in this world. Jesus himself indicated that the servants are not greater than the master. What happened to him will happen to us.

Again, that’s for another post