Herbert and Catherine Schaible asked God to heal their 8-month-old baby son with magic while he spent days struggling to breathe. He died last week. They were still on probation for manslaughter after letting their two-year-old son die of pneumonia in 2009 under similar circumstances: they sought the aid of supernatural beings with magical powers rather than doctors with medical degrees. 

Imagine Herbert and Catherine Schaible had killed a toddler in 2009 with a savage beating or by neglecting it in favor of watching Star Trek DVDs for a week straight while it coughed itself to death. Would they have gotten probation for that or would they still be sitting in prison today? How likely is it that, once placed in the hands of a jury, Herbert and Catherine Schaible will ever spend time in prison for killing the second of two small children with religiously motivated medical neglect?

You might want to Google similar cases before you post your thoughts on the matter.

Tags: medical, motivated, neglect, religiously

Views: 925

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This may sound cruel and insensitive, but isnt this an effective way to let religious fanaticism literally die out?

These maniacs will not spread their DNA. Their faith is killing them and their culture of faith.

They walk the walk and provide an accurate example of the power of faith.

Even though it is certainly vile and counter intuitive to allow children to die, maybe those who would pray themselves into oblivion should be allowed to do so.

You have to wonder why all the "pro-life" fanatics aren't picketing the court.

The point I was trying to make is you cant brain wash a dead child into becoming a fanatic.

Fanaticism does not 'die out', it just finds new victims. If the victims are very young, they cannot easily find an advocate, unless someone is watching. The fanatics do not have an 'off switch' once they get on a roll, everything is used to validate their ideology.

Ideology does not need 'genetics' per say, only another mind to express it. 

Just out of sheer curiosity, has it been conclusively proven that genetics have no influence on an affinity for fundamentalism? For the record I do not identify myself as an atheist, only a human being who does not subscribe to fairytale s and bullshit.

I expect that given enough 'culling' from the ranks of religious folks, by discrimination, child murder/killing, etc, there could be a genetic drift/specialization into a small genetic pool. How it would be expressed is unclear. But maybe:

Small heads, big mouths, reduced intellectual ability/intelligence, increased sensitivity to the words 'science', 'fact', 'evidence' , 'Darwin', reduced functional vocabulary, reduced attention span for social connections, increased litter size due to reduced viability, and a preference for dark confined places near government buildings. In short something similar to morlocks, but without the technical skills...;p)   

Re read my original post. At no time did I claim fanaticism is spread by DNA. I only said those that kill their children will not spread their DNA. Or, if we are fortunate, their CULTURE of faith.

But let me ask this, if someone makes a statement of fact disputing anothers statement, the disagreeing party does not have to provide factual evidence regarding that statement?

That sounds like bullshit.

And a cop out.

re re read my first post. it is in there.

"These maniacs will not spread their dna. Their faith is killing them and their culture of faith" That is verbatim from my first post.

You even reprinted this in your first reply.

One method (if not the primary method) of perpetuating a culture is through family members.

No family members, no traditions passed down, their culture begins its decline..

That is exactly what I meant. My fault for not spelling it out. I am not a writer. It is on me for not expressing my ideas clearly and concisely and a main reason I dont enjoy posting anything on this site outside of my little record group.

And any time someone says "no thats not true"

regardless if it is what I meant specifically, if it is something I genuinely dont know but would like to find out I will ask that person if they know what they are talking about. And usually they do not. They simply disagree and try to pass off their opinion as fact.

I'm not outraged, only calling bullshit when I hear it.

So it is not a cop out to disagree and have absolutley no facts to back up that which one is claiming to be untrue?

"It is not true because I say so." and thats enough?

That is what I am calling bullshit. It sounds like a rule of engagement made up by one who does not want to lose the argument but has nothing to refute the others side except NO it isnt "Razz Berry."

How is that not intellectual dishonesty?

Intellectual dishonesty. Really?

Trying to paint me as a liar is the way you respond to people?

That is revealing. Thank you.

And no thank you.

All I can wonder is how their faith still stands.  Stories like these sure are a testament to the virulent nature of cult indoctrination - an intellectual infection for which their is no anti-body.  Even the death of their own children is just a 'test' of their faith, in their demented minds.  It sends shivers down my spine.

I am sure they will "explain" it all away.  After all isn't it god's will?  (Sarcasm mode on)

come on, they were praying for him .. may be they weren't believing enough :P

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service