Shots Across The Bow

First amendment revisited

First amendment revisited Right on the heels of the "Under God" controversy comes this story about a local girl with cancer

A Loudon County mother is accused of putting too much faith in prayer and not enough in the medical community in the treatment of a "basketball-sized" cancerous growth afflicting her daughter.

Jacqueline Pearl Crank, 41, has been charged with aggravated child abuse for allegedly failing to seek treatment for her 15-year-old daughter after being advised by medical personnel to do so, authorities said Friday.

Crank was arrested late last week at the Loudon County home she shared with her daughter and at least 11 other people, including the pastor of the religious group of which Crank is a member. She is being held in the Loudon County Jail.

Loudon County Sheriff Tim Guider said Friday prosecutors are considering whether to file charges against "other adults" living in the home who were aware of the girl's condition. He did not say whether the group's leader, Ben Sherman, is one of those adults who could face charges.

OK, let's refresh ourselves on the relevant text

I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

It doesn't say "free exercise thereof, except when we disagree with it," or "free exercise thereof, as long as it doesn't interfer with modern medicine," or even "free exercise thereof, except when we think the believers are whack jobs." But the same folks who throw a conniption at the slightest whiff of religious content in our government are more than willing to trample the first amendment rights of believers they disagree with.

Here it is plain and simple; the first phrase is written fairly narrowly. Congress cannot act to establish an official state religion. That's all. The second clause is much broader. Congress cannot write any law which restricts the free exercise of any religion. Period. Simple words, folks, easy to understand, even if we don't like the implications. The same words which allow for use of illegal substances in Native American religious ceremonies allows this mother to chose the manner of care for her daughter. It is a central tenet of her faith that prayer is the best medicine, and that submission to the will of God is absolute. If God wants her child to live, she will; if God wants her child to die, she will. The failure to seek medical care for her daughter is a logical extension of that tenet, and is protected under the first amendment.

The argument on the other side is that the mother's first amendment rights end when they begin to cause injury to her daughter. The flaw in this argument is that it assumes that the physical well being of the child is more important than the spiritual well being, an assumption which is contrary to the first amendment, which clearly values the spiritual freedom as highly, if not more highly than physical freedon. Consider that the Constitution acts to limit the expression of many physical freedoms, yet in unambiguous language does not allow ANY restriction on spiritual freedoms.

Posted by Rich at July 8, 2002 2:29 AM