A jury is currently deliberating on the fate of a Wisconsin man who is accused of neglecting his sick daughter's need for a doctor. Instead, Dale Neumann prayed that his daughter would be healed. Neumann's 11-year-old daughter, Madeline, died in March of 2008 because of untreated diabetes. Doctors have said that had Madeline received medical treatment, she would not have perished. Madeline's mother, Neumann's wife, has already been convicted of second-degree reckless homicide and could face up to 25 years in prison. Neumann said, in his defense, that he never thought Madeline was so unwell that she could die. He also argued that he believed that God would heal her and so taking her to a doctor would have amounted to blasphemy and since the time of our death is preordained, who is he to question a decision made upstairs?!
Neumann might have done better to just put forward one defense: either he didn't know his daughter was so sick OR he knew she was sick but believed that her life was in God's hands. Putting both arguments forward sounds like he's saying 'I didn't know she was so sick, but even if I had known how sick she was, I would have had faith in Him.' Unfortunately for Neumann, the first part of his argument, that he was ignorant of his daughter's situation doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Neumann's wife testified that she did think her daughter was unwell and probably had the flu. Doctors also testified that Madeline would have become unresponsive and her breathing would become noticably labored.
With the 'I didn't know' argument out of the way, that leaves 'it's all in God's hands'. To this I would argue that if you believe that there is a supernatural power in the world that is governing anything and everything, then how do you explain the existence of doctors and the science of medicine? If you follow this reasoning then medicine is here by God's Will and if it is here by God's Will then who are any of us to turn it away?! Clearly Neumann's beliefs eschew logic. If we assume that he is deluded or deranged, that still doesn't excuse the fact that he sat by his daughter's side as she fought for life and he did nothing to save her. Even if he believed that it would be a sin to go against God's decision to take his baby, what parent wouldn't take action to save their baby even if it meant incurring the wrath of your savior?! If questioning God could save a loved one, I would do it in an instance.
Once again organized religion has been dragged through the mud to serve an individual's insanity. I hope that jury in Wisconsin throw the book at him!
skimpy speedos REQUIRED!
Who knew that swimming costumes could be such an emotionally charged issue?! Here in the states I would assume that most pools and other swimming locales just have one requirement: WEAR SOMETHING!! For old men this means a tiny little SPEEDO, for younger men and boys loose shorts are the thing to don. On the ladies' side, the modest wear bathing suits that feature a boy short or covered midriff while the immodest trot out with an itsy-bitsy-teen-weeny....You get the idea. Apparently the French aren't afforded the same freedom to pick and choose their swimwear. The Guardian reported today that in France, men are not aloud to wear loose swimming trunks and women are not allowed to wear cover ups.
The authorities that impose these restrictions forcing men to wear tiny SPEEDOs and women to wear nothing more than a slim fitting traditional bathing suit that exposes their limbs and outlines their form, argue that it is merely a hygiene issue. The argument is that longer swimming shorts or cover-ups can be worn outside the pool where they pick up dirt which would then be tracked into the pool if these items were allowed. The argument, that I can think of, against this hygiene defense is that there is no guarantee that people's skimpy bathers are clean. They could have been hanging out in their backyard in them or gone to the beach and not washed them yet. This is why the system, featured at American pools, of having people rinse off and disinfect their feet before getting in the pool is a more certain way to ensure that no one is tracking in unwanted dirt. Although all of this discussion about small amounts of dirt seems pointless when there is absolutely no way to prevent people from urinating in the pool so no matter what is done, the swimming pool is never going to be a pure affair!
The additional aspect to the swimwear debate is France's growing Muslim community. To some in the Muslim community, a woman's modesty is central to her, and her family's, religious observances. Because of this, some Muslim woman have asked to have 'Women Only' periods at local pools and have attempted to wear burkinis to their local pools. Some officials have cried out that changing swimming pool policies to fit in with the Muslim communities requirements is tantamount to turning the secular institution of public swimming pools into a religious institution. I can appreciate that the French establishment feels that it is threatened by this large, growing number of people who are ruled by religion, something all French have but do not practice. It is not as if Islam is the only cultural influence France is resistant to, think of how loathe they are to adopt English terms in their language! That said, it seems overly stringent to control what people wear to the pool.
At the end of the day, people visit the pool to have fun and enjoy themselves...not stir political ire. The French might do well to remember that and ease up a little bit on all the tourists that still consider themselves modest.
Posted at 02:05 PM in Cultural Commentary, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)