An 11-year-old girl died of complications from undiagnosed diabetes on the floor of her home while her parents and people around her prayed. The parents were convicted of second-degree reckless homicide in the death of their daughter.  They were given a very light sentence:  just 10 years probation and 30 days a year in jail for the next six years.

While these "parents" are not Christian Scientists, the statements they made trying to defend their actions (or lack thereof) sound very CS-like. 

The girl's mother said:

"I do not regret trusting truly in the Lord for my daughter's health," she said. "Did we know she had a fatal illness? No. Did we act to the best of our knowledge? Yes."

And her father, said in his testimony:

"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," ... "I am not believing what he said he would do."

I don't see any remorse in those statements, and more frightening, it suggests they still believe their "treatment" of their 11-year old child was proper.  Except for the court-imposed requirement for medical care for their remaining three children, it very much looks like they would sacrifice the rest of the family if given the opportunity. 

More proof of their misguided intentions and self-righteous:  They plan to appeal the conviction because state law is not clear on the issue of spiritual treatment.  Given they could have been sentenced to 25 years in prison, and their total lack of repentance, I think they got off way too easily.

My point is - people need to know the Lord and have HIS law written on their hearts.  Human laws and lawmakers are not always on the side of God. Children and those who can not protect themselves need to be protected from abuse and neglect, but those same governmental institutions that protect them have been, and will, according to the Scriptures, be used to  persecute, imprison and execute those who believe in the Word of God and teach it openly. 

Just listening to the debate about health care insurance shows us that there are a wide variety views  in the U.S. about the sanctity of life, the "right" to health care, and whether we be forced to pay for things we believe Biblically are evil.  We support what we can, but in the end, people need to know the Jesus of the Bible who died to pay for our sins that we might through faith in Him as the only Lord and only Savior-God be redeemed from a dying and unjust world and have the promise of eternal life in heaven with Him, and of His Spirit abiding in us now.

"Though you have not seen Him, you love Him. Though you do not now see Him, you believe in Him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls." I Peter 1: 8-9

Well said,  --but it really only becomes tricky when we allow some people to complicate the issue and use/abuse religion as an excuse for their own lack of personal responsibility.  Common sense has to have some place here.  Organized religion should be outraged at cases such of this one, and speak up to correct such obvious distortions of true religious practice.

As for the state: 

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from discriminating between people based on their religious beliefs. But it is well understood that this freedom and many others is not absolute.  There are limits to our freedoms, --limits which are meant to ensure our protection and well-being.  One of the tests the  US Supreme Court uses to measure the limits of our constitutional freedoms is the "clear and present danger" test. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in at least twice on the topic; in 1990 and in 1944, when it ruled that while parents "may be free to become martyrs themselves, it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children."

One of the key limits to freedom of religion is the point where religious practice threatens to harm others, especially children. We cannot allow any one to cross that line.  I think that kind of limit on our religious freedoms is a very small price to pay for the safety of the most vulnerable members of society.   And I don't think it would threaten the further erosion of the rest of our religious freedoms as long as we remain vigilant and responsible citizens.