Читать книгу Kingdom Perspective: Odds and Ends - Kenneth B. Alexander Alexander - Страница 11

Churches or its ministers be sued for malpractice in the courts such as doctors and other professionals? Some say that subjecting churches to liability for malfeasance is a violation of the first amendment and produces a "chilling effect" on religion as a whole.

First of all, some see organized religion as a threat to society (one can draw a large polarity between religion and true spirituality). The current state of religion is about the dollar, membership numbers and visibility (via television for instance). Also popular is the compromise of spiritual principles in the name of making the religion more palatable to the masses. Religion is used to obtain political and/or moral goals and is a vast opiate for society in that society is lulled into a false sense of security, claiming possession of some tenet or another that they really don't have. Religion is one big advertisement for its particular brand of spiritually (or lack of it). Denominations number into the multi thousands (or more) each advocating their own particular interpretation of Christ or whatever god or gods they are worshipping. Polytheistic religions aside, if there is only one God how can he have such a confusing and varied set of doctrines?

Verdicts against some large religions are valid. Verdicts against non-mainline religions such as Scientology, polygamy, Mormonism and counseling by ministers without even basic training in how to direct people seems justified. The ministers, who admit the truth that they are unqualified to be a marriage counselor, and refer their congregants to professionals, are to be commended. They know that subject is minimally covered in seminary school and they are willing to stick with what they know which is (purportedly) religion and spiritually. Those who bull ahead, and act out of their field, deserve to be regulated by the rest of society. It is age old law that one be responsible for his/her actions that do harm to others. Those who come to the church for suicide counseling and are told just to believe God are being done a dangerous disservice.

Not that psychiatry has all the answers. But there are myriad support groups where the individual takes charge of his/her own destiny with the support of others similarly situated. Would the church, or would Alcoholics Anonymous, be better able and qualified to treat alcoholism?

What about drug dependence, molestation, mental disorders, violent temper, personality disorders or depression. Who would be more qualified: A group of peers who had been there or a trained mental health professional; or a minister who likely has no education, training or experience (personal or otherwise) in treating these illnesses? Would you want your preacher proscribing a cure for cancer? Yet some have done this, shunning medical care for a spiritual prescription, and have (or should have) had their hands slapped hard by our legal tort system i.e. a reasonable person would find this an abhorrent practice. Religion regulated by a government system is unwise and illegal in our society. There, however, can and should be legal regulation by a group of 12 ordinary persons in a jury box who don't decide policy per se but decide what is preventable negligence in each separate case that comes before them.

When a standard of reasonable conduct is used to measure religion, the result is good if the religion is sometimes brought up short. Do we not sue the Doctor who cut off the wrong arm, or left a sponge in a patient's stomach? Should we not likewise sue the church or religious practitioner for doing psychological damage by applying religion as a cure-all? The constitution gives us a right to practice religion but not apply it in an extreme that goes beyond religion and into conduct that any reasonable man can see as harmful. As an example we have the right of free speech but that right does not extend into areas like yelling fire in a theater.

Our function of a separated government including courts, as set forth in our constitution, seems to do quite well in most cases. We may not find, in all cases, the one right answer, but together we find a reasonable answer. I can think of no standard that could work as well. Since we have the institution of religion we as a society should have the right to reasonably regulate it through the courts without violating the first amendment freedom it enjoys.