On Saturday, October 17th, PhACT members found themselves on the slippery slope of the issues which arise when the welfare of a child is endangered by parents committed to extreme religious prohibitions. Founding PhACT member and former philosophy professor Bill Wisdom described to us his recent appearance as an expert witness for the defense in the trial of Daniel and Anne-Marie Foster. The Fosters had been accused of endangering the welfare of Patrick, their two-year-old son, by not seeking medical treatment for a large and quite visible tumor.

Bill mentioned PhACT's reluctance to investigate purely religious claims. (We, like CSICOP, do consider "scientific" creationism and physical manifestations, such as bleeding statues and faith healing, to be fair game.) Although Bill does not agree with this limitation, he abides by it. Bill, who was a Christian fundamentalist in his younger years, has been asked, "Why would you, an atheist and skeptic for 40 years, defend people accused of hurting someone based on their religious beliefs?"

As it turns out, Bill was drawn into the case by a twist of fate. The Fosters' lawyer had seen Bill's "Inquirer" letter on the subject and had recognized Bill as his logic teacher of many years back. Thus 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. This is a closely-knit religious group linked to previous cases of children dying as a result of the withholding of proper medical care. A social worker, acting on an anonymous tip, had tried to get the Fosters to take young Patrick to a doctor. That failing, the social worker had got a court order and had 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. The doctors considered him to be a day away from death. Patrick was treated and put in the care of an aunt.

From the legal point of view this could have been a case of abuse and neglect, a misdemeanor. However, the parents were charged with a felony, endangering the welfare of a child, and also of conspiring to do so. At the trial, after no small amount of arguing, the jury was instructed to consider Bill a qualified expert witness. Bill testified that the Fosters were simply following their religious beliefs as interpreted from the bible.

The Fosters were not prosecuted for what they believed but for what they had failed to do. The constitution says that the law may not prohibit free exercise of religious belief, but there are limitations on how one may act 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 would have been justified but that felony charges were not. [Despite Bill's efforts, the Fosters were found guilty of child endangerment and were sentenced to 14 years probation.] Bill advocates the use of family court, not criminal court in such cases. He asserts that the Fosters had correctly interpreted the biblical claim, "You will get everything you pray for," but he alleges that this claim is testable and false. Bill closed with, "I send you out as missionaries for critical thinking."

The ensuing discussion was spirited. Many members were aghast at the harm caused by misdirected blind faith. Steve Dybalski pointed out that the Faith Congregation Church has its own school. Its members don't read newspapers, use TV or radio, and are closed to outside opinions. They apparently not only abstain from medical doctors but try to do without eye-glasses as well. They make limited exceptions for dental care but will only have it without pain killers, even for root canals. Ouch!

Also discussed were the difficulty of getting through to such intransigent people, and the rights of parents versus the rights of children. Laughter followed the suggestion that cult member deaths were merely an overdue Darwinian force on our species.