On Saturday October 17th, members of PhACT found themselves on the 'slippery slope' of issues raised when the welfare of a child is endangered by parents who are obstinately  committed to extreme religious prohibitions.   Founding member and former Philosophy professor Bill Wisdom spoke to PhACT concerning his recent appearance as an expert witness in the well-publicized trial of Daniel and Anne Marie Foster.  The Fosters were accused of endangering the welfare of Patrick, their 2 year-old son who was denied medical treatment for a large and eminently visible tumor. Bill appeared as an expert witness on behalf of the Fosters.     Bill explained PhACT's reluctance to investigate purely religious claims (though we do consider creationism, bleeding statues and faith healing to be fair game).  Although Bill does not agree with that limitation, he agrees to abide by it. Bill was a Christian fundamentalist in his younger  years.  He has been asked concerning his defense of the Fosters: "Why would you, an atheis  and skeptic of 40 years, defend people accused of hurting someone based on religious beliefs?"      As it turns out, Bill was drawn into the case by a twist of fate (with apologies to those in the skeptic movement who don't believe in fate). The Fosters' lawyer had seen Bill's Inquirer editorial on the subject and recognized Bill as his Philosophy professor of many years back.  Bill was brought in to explain the nature of the Fosters' belief -- which Bill wanted to clarify to the public.   The Fosters' belong to the Faith Tabernacle Congregation on North 5th

Street in Philadelphia. They are a closely-knit religious group linked to previous cases of children who died as a result of withholding proper medical care. A social worker acting on an anonymous tip had tried to get the Fosters to take young Patrick to a doctor. Failing that, the social worker got a court  rder and removed Patrick with the aid of two other social workers.  Patrick was gaunt, lethargic and in great pain, with a large  bump protruding from his  abdomen. The tumor, which had been noticed by his parents two months earlier, had grown from his kidney to his heart and he was considered a day away from death.  Patrick was treated and put in the care of an Aunt.   From the legal point of view, it was not "a case of abuse and neglect,"  It was a felony (rather than misdemeanor) charge of endangering the welfare of a child (and, incidentally, of also conspiring to do so). At trial, after no small amount of arguing, the jury was instructed to consider Bill a qualified expert witness. Bill testified that the Fosters were following their religious beliefs as interpreted from the bible. The Fosters were prosecuted for what they failed to do, not what they believed.  The  constitution says that the law may not prohibit free exercise of religious belief, but there are limitations on how one acts out one's beliefs. For example, one is free to believe in Satan, but one cannot commit murder and then claim first amendment protection under the guise that the killing was merely

the practice of Satanism. Bill feels that a court order to force proper care was justified but that felony charges were not. He advocates use of family court, not criminal court. Bill agrees the Fosters correctly interpretted the biblical claim "you can get everything you pray for" - but that it is testable and false. Bill closed with, " I send you out as missionaries for critical thinking."     The ensuing discussion was most spirited.  Many members were aghast at the harm caused by such misdirected blind faith. Steve Dyblasky pointed out that the Faith Congregation Church has its own school, its members don't read newspapers or use tv or radio, and are very closed to outside opinions. They apparently not only abstain from medical doctors but try to do with out eyeglasses as well. They do makelimited exceptions for dental care but will only have it without pain killers (even for  root canals). Ouch!  There were fascinating discussions about getting through to such intransigent people, as well as debate over the rights of parents versus the rights of children. Many people discussed the fine points of whether the parents knew their actions were illegal.  Restrained laughter erupted from sarcastic questions like whether cult member deaths were just a overdue Darwinian force on our species.