Wis. mother thought illness was sin

WAUSAU, Wis. – A mother accused of rejecting medical treatment and relying on prayer as her 11-year-old daughter died of untreated diabetes believed people got sick because they sinned, a former friend said Tuesday at the woman's homicide trial.

Althea Wormgoor and her husband described praying with Leilani Neumann and her family in Madeline Neumann's last hours, a scene that turned to chaos and tearful pleas to heaven when the girl stopped breathing.

Leilani Neumann also attributed sickness to demons, Wormgoor testified. She said that when one of her sons got sick, Neumann thought his vomiting was to rid his body of demons.

<snip>

Prosecutors contend a reasonable parent would have known something was gravely wrong with Madeline, who had become so weak she couldn't walk or talk. They say Neumann recklessly killed her daughter by praying instead of rushing her to a doctor.


Another Murder by Praying Case

I once heard the psychologist John Bradshaw call the family unit a 'cult' under the definition we generally use and I heartily agree. And one way that families indoctrinate their kids, often from birth, is through religion. The terrorizing of children by bringing up hell and God watching us all the time is very powerful. And if one grows up in an area with a bunch of people like this, it's even more reinforcing.

I saw "Jesus Camp." I thank God that I wasn't raised a fundamental anything, nor in a community with these types of people. But I have compassion for those who may have been led astray somewhere.

I kid.

is obviously a person of "deep and abiding faith". How can you possibly bash her??

:sarcasm:

Madeline Kara Neumann

People like Wormgoor are mentally unstable. Whether demons, aliens, or the gnome that lives at the bottom of her garden told her to take this path is irrelevant. Something is not right in her head.

If religion didn't exist, these disturbed people would find something else to say motivated their actions. Sane people can understand the place of their belief systems in their lives; people like this individual cannot.

How do you know she would have refused treatment for her child if she was of a different religion? How do you know the woman is crazy?

I'm saying that disturbed people will always find SOMEthing that they will say motivated their actions. And of COURSE the woman has mental problems--she let her daughter die. If she was right in the head, she would been able to rationally assess the situation and get the girl some help.

But she says it is religion.

How do we know the difference?

Is religion being used as a cover for mental illness or vice versa?

as subsets of all sorts of groups and classifications. I think it's a great disservice to people of any faith to paint them all with a broad brush--in this case that all Christians are crazy and would let their children die instead of getting them medical help. That's like saying all Muslims are wild-eyed terrorists.

I have used no broad brush.

You have said that the woman had mental problems. The woman said she had religion.

How are you able to tell the difference? How is anyone able to tell the difference?

How can you tell that religion is not being used to cover up for mental illness?

How can you tell that mental illness is not being used to cover up for religion?

Anyone who would say she was following her religion and let her daughter die has a screw loose. It's not religion's fault; it's the fault of the crazy woman who used religion as an excuse (although I'm sure she believes she did the right thing, in her addled perception). In HER case, yes, religion is being used as a cover up for her mental illness, although she doesn't see it that way. However, that does not mean that all religious people are crazy and use their religion as a cover up for mental illness. And let's cut to the chase: Too many cynics like to equate being religious with insanity; I believe that's the theme underlying this thread. Even though there's no love lost between me and organized religion, I refuse to participate in that kind of behavior, so I end up defending organized religion--me! a pagan! How's that for a turnabout?

But you still did not answer the basic question: "How do we know the difference?"

When you decide whether a person is mentally ill or just fanatically religious, how do you decide? What is that decision making process like? Walk me through it. Please.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

A. Crazy. Person. Lets. Her. Daughter. Die.
A. Religious. Person. Who. Is. Not. Crazy. Does. Not. Let. Her. Daughter. Die.

People who choose to believe that religion is a form of insanity will continue this argument till doomsday, hiding behind disingenuous, oh-so-clever "challenges" like "How do we know the difference"? If you are one of those people, knock yaself out. But I will not tussle with you that long. I have things to do in this life besides :banghead:

I'll see you around. :hi:

Whenever I ask what the difference is between religion and mental illness, it results in anger and accusations, but never a clear understanding.

I would have thought that anyone with real religion could answer that question. I guess I was wrong.

you pulled me back in. Good work, CD.
:rofl:

"It always ends the same way." My goodness, there's that broad brush again. Tsk tsk.

"(I)t results in anger and accusations, but never a clear understanding." Seriously? What reality are you living in? Because I was not expressing any anger. Frustration, certainly :banghead: but not anger. Or perhaps you're referring to yourself?

Trouble is, the only thing you want to hear from anyone is "Religious people are all insane!!! It's insanity to follow a religion!!!" Anything less, and you discount it as "not an answer to your question". You'd better get back to your echo chamber where everyone agrees with you, because you're not going to get that from me. I know plenty of people of faith who are gentle, kind, and loving, not insane in the least. And you know what? I'll bet you do as well. But it's fun to be so clever online, isn't it?

On edit: erroneous italics

And of COURSE the woman has mental problems--she let her daughter die.

Many people are pro-war because of their religion, do you consider these folk to be mentally ill as well?

And before you say "Death is death", bear in mind that there's a vast difference between standing there and watching a loved one die when you could have done something to prevent it (a person has to have a screw loose to do that) and behaving as though your country is a sports team. Most rah-rah pro-war people are far removed from the reality of blood-and-guts conflict. But I strongly suspect you know all that already. It's boring that you actually put me in a position that I had to say it.

I am not calling you boring, you are interesting me with debate, but whenever I hear or read that complaint, I think of those words.

Most rah-rah pro-war people are far removed from the reality of blood-and-guts conflict.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Current Israel/Palestine conflicts are both religious and up close.

Some U.S. soldiers have been calling the Iraq war a religious war and have been attempting to convert Iraqis.

The Irish Republican Army were both religious and up close.

The terrorist version of Jihad.

My example for rah-rah pro-war people are the Murkin Republicans and/or fundies--the fat and comfortable crowd who have never seen a war on their own shores, let alone in their own neighborhoods. The reality of war is so far removed from their own lives that it's not real to them, and therefore they treat the U.S. military as a sports team, cheering them on from the stands and being eager for "victory". As for evidence, we've seen it nonstop on Faux News and other media outlets, and in our neighbors' eyes for the past six years. We've discussed it ad nauseum here on DU for just as long.

While I feel participating in "holy wars" is an incorrect thing to do, the people who participate in them are the product of a very complicated history and culture that I would never presume to understand and therefore would never dream of opining about. However, I feel that it's quite different, fighting for the cause of religious domination, as opposed to choosing to watch your own child die in front of your eyes.

Strange, I thought you were talking about mental illness, which my questions concerned.

I would never presume to understand

Do you understand the parents of the child who died?

Do you find it bizarre that they both had, in your opinion, a mental illness with the same symptom?

The subject is the woman who let her daughter die and put it down to her allegedly Christian religious beliefs. You expanded it to people who are pro-war, THEN you expanded it past Murkin Christian fundies to all people who believe in holy wars worldwide, which is far beyond the scope of this debate. So let's bring it back home, okay?

Do YOU understand the parents of the child who died? No; no-one can. We weren't there. All we can go on is what the news story says. Some people here are claiming that it's religion's fault. I am one who claims that it's the fault of a disturbed mind that has latched onto religion in an unhealthy way.

I did NOT say they both had a mental illness with the same symptom. As was stated in the article, it was the woman's choice to take the path she did regarding the health of her daughter, and her husband didn't speak up, although he told the friend that he disagreed.

Randall Wormgoor testified that he had urged Neumann's husband, Dale, to take Madeline to a hospital.

"I said, 'Dale, if that was my daughter, I would be taking her to a doctor," Randall Wormgoor said. "He said at some point, 'Don't you think it has crossed my mind.'"

Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, San Diego, California, and Dagger Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD), Inc, Sioux City, Iowa. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/4/625">Child Fatalities From Religion-motivated Medical Neglect These groups claim to think medical neglect can be a product of some religious beliefs.

Do YOU understand the parents of the child who died? No; no-one can.

If you do not believe you understand them, how do you know the cause was mental illness? Perhaps she just hated her daughter. What do you think of the article I linked to?

I did NOT say they both had a mental illness with the same symptom. As was stated in the article, it was the woman's choice to take the path she did regarding the health of her daughter, and her husband didn't speak up, although he told the friend that he disagreed.

They both took the same action to treat their daughter's illness; which seems to be nothing. Though the father's trail has yet to begin, so he may have tried to act. Your father quote only suggests the thought of seeking medical help crossed his mind, I would imagine the same thought crossed the mother's mind as well.

"Perhaps she just hated her daughter."

Well, therein lies the problem--what lies beneath the ability to murder your own child? See, I truly believe that you have to have a mental problem to be capable of something like that. Other people believe that you can be sane and still kill your own offspring. So there's a fundamental difference right there, if you believe that a person can be sane and yet consciously choose to kill his or her own child.

I'm not questioning the fact that some people do horrendous things in the name of religion. I also don't question the results that were noted in the article you linked to; I realize that happens. But again, what lies beneath the action? You seem to believe that it's religion that causes people to do these things to their children. I say that these parents have to have a pathological problem FIRST, and that's the cause; religion is the window-dressing they choose to dress up their pathology. Now, I don't mean that they look around and think, "Oh yeah, I'll say I did it because of my religion--that's the ticket." Instead, I mean that they truly believe, in their addled brains, that their religion really IS advocating that type of action. And they'd be wrong--but it's their PERCEPTION of religion that makes them think they're right. Religion (or any other motivating factor) as seen through a fun-house mirror, if you will.

So I don't think we're going to come to an agreement about this subject, ZH, if you do indeed think that a) people can be sane and yet be capable of killing their own children; and b) religion causes people to do horrendous things to their children instead of those people having a screw loose the predates the affiliation with their religion.

But I do appreciate the (mostly ;) ) respectful debate.

Stop making excuses for these people and their reactionary theology.

I despise fundamentalist Christianity, but not every Christian behaves this way, and I will not pretend otherwise just to help every cynic on DU feel superior.

It IS about religion. Religious zealotry is most certainly the problem here. Whether you accept that or not, there is not even the slightest implication that ALL religious people would do this. Germs cause diseases. That's about as close to a certainty as science allows. Everybody has germs. But not ALL germs cause diseases in ALL people. Similarly religious belief is the culprit in this death. There is no materialistic and secular cause which demands prayer as a sole medical treatment. There is no "hook" for whatever mental issues this person has to fasten onto to refuse medical treatment in the name of atheism. It took a religious belief for that to happen. It doesn't mean everybody religious is that wacko.

The trouble with using the idea of mental illness in and of itself as an excuse for everything wacko done in the name of religion forces you into the question asked above. And the answer cannot be the circular reasoning you suggest. There are thousands, millions, of equally fundamentalist equally extreme believers who have not let their kids die, but until they do, how do we know which ones will be likely to take that step in the name of the same religious faith expressed in the same way and with the same conviction as this woman?

As I said in a previous post, it is NOT about religion; it is about a SINGLE mentally disturbed person who let her daughter die. This woman mistakenly believed that prayer alone would help her daughter, which is not the product of religion, but of a disturbed individual. Note that the article does not say that her PASTOR told her to only pray and not call a doctor. This woman acted on her OWN, rejecting the advice of her friends and even the preference of her husband, that they call an ambulance, until the last minute.

"There are thousands, millions, of equally fundamentalist equally extreme believers who have not let their kids die....It doesn't mean everybody religious is that wacko."

That's what's important.

"(U)ntil they do, how do we know which ones will be likely to take that step in the name of the same religious faith expressed in the same way and with the same conviction as this woman?"

We can't ASSUME that those thousands, millions of fundamentalists believe the same thing as this woman, nor can we EXPECT them to act that way eventually. That's guilty till proven innocent. We cannot prove that, and we never will be able to, because it's simply not true. (Good gods, I cannot believe I'm defending fundies... :banghead: )

There have been dozens upon dozens of these type of case. A group of atheists to which I used to belong were instrumental in fighting one just like it in Minnesota, and I've read many more instances that came to the courts and others that did not. If it were ONE person who had ONE wacky opinion who just happened to be deeply religious your point would be valid, but EVERY case of eschewing medical attention (not being unable to afford it or get service, but refusing very available and covered care) for kids I've ever come across has been based on religious principles. Some kids die. Some don't. Some get in the news, some don't. But it's never ever a case where medical attention is refused children on the grounds of atheism - always religion.

And even if this were the only religiously driven lunacy that could be arguably a coincidence, but we have kids killed by "exorcisms" or beaten to death with "biblical discipline" too, let alone the religiously-inspired homophobia (again it shouldn't need stressing but just in case yes I know not all homophobes are religious and neither are all religious folks homophobes - but the organized opposition always coalesces around religious belief does it not? Prop 8? God Hates Fags?) and other bigotries.


You can;t just say "Oh she's mentally ill and religion has nothing to do with it" because in your own words we just don't know whether she would have done this without religion. We know she DID do it because of her religious beliefs. You can claim, hope or theorize that she's mentally ill and that's the main reason, but we have no clue. Religion can and has been the sole reason for such atrocities and others before, and will be again. The doctors for example (who we can assume know at least as much about mental illness as we do, and far more about the people in this case) could have pushed for a mental competence hearing to remove decisions from the parents. A judge could have found them incapable of making rational decisions. In the absence of such things, musings about mental illness are just that. We on the other hand know for sure her stated reasons are entirely religious in nature.

But you yourself said that there are "thousands, millions of fundamentalists" who DON'T kill their kids. The MAJORITY of religious people do not kill their children and say it's part of their religious beliefs. As I said, crazy people are a subset of ALL groups, including religious groups. To define a religious group solely by the crazies in their midst does them a great disservice.

And as I said upthread, yes, these crazy people claim that they based their actions on religion, but if all religions disappeared tomorrow, they'd find something else to base their actions on. Religion is just a convenient crutch for them, in their addled minds. They wouldn't suddenly become sane if their religion disappeared.

And there HAVE been athiests who have killed their children, but atheism is not (if you'll pardon me this--no disrespect intended) something that is usually used as an identifier--not as easily as a religious affiliation, that is. You never see a news article that states "Joan Smith, an avowed atheist, was charged with negligent homicide in the death of her daughter..." It's just not used as a descriptor the way a religious belief is. But can you deny that there are crazy people who are atheists as well? Perhaps those people "heard voices", or as I said before, the gnome at the bottom of the garden came to life and told them to kill their kids.

Now, I'm not talking about the actual things that certain organized religions DO encourage, like your example of Prop 8. Of course those teachings are reprehensible--but those, we can trace back to a particular teaching of a particular church. Again, note that the woman in this article was acting on her OWN--nobody in her church told her to do what she did.

(And although this is a discussion for another day, I do NOT condone any negativity, like homophobia, in the name of religion, and I blame those reprehensible teachings not on a belief's basis--in the case of fundies, Jesus' word--but on the political organization that is the modern church that has twisted these bases for their own fun and profit.)

Atheism is very much an identifier. When O'Hair was killed it damn well was the ONLY identifier. But what you seem to agree on, and if not you should, is that atheism is never going to be a "cause" for which wackos act in a way like this. Atheists can certainly be wackos, but there is no instance of an atheist killing their kids because they don't have demons or think gods won't cure them. Even for the mentally ill, there is no traction however irrational that can lead you from lack of gods to allowing your kids to die because you think a lack of gods will save them.

That's because atheism is believing in a LACK of something, right? I mean, yeah, nobody has ever said, "I thought it was all right to let my child die because of my abiding belief in no god." With that lack (not a loss and no negative connotation implied--just the absence of something), it's not possible to use it as an excuse the way this woman used her religion.

...I fear I'm not coming up with the right words to explain this. But does that make sense?

is cite about 10% of the examples that can be found just like this one, where kids were allowed to die because of atheism. Not where atheists abused their kids or neglected them (surely that happens) but where they do it, even in their own minds, BECAUSE of atheism - where they state "I don't believe in medical intervention because atheism will cure her".

Regardless of the mental instability or otherwise (religiosity excepted) of this mother, the undeniable facts are the kid died because the mother believed that a deity would cure her. Absent the idea of a deity, how would this have happened? You mention fairies in the garden. Can you cite an example where mental illness has fixated on fairies curing people who have been let die? If that ever happens, wouldn't it just be another religious belief anyway? Myths are myths, and there is no difference between believing Jehovah will save your kid or believing Apollo or Xenu will - or fairies - it's all religious belief. The Xian one is not that special or that different. All can be deadly delusions.

Notice the "can" by the way. If all religious people were similarly irrational there would be no religious people left.

about the type of God that they are worshipping that would allow an eleven year old to die from the sins she committed. What did she do, forget to say her bedtime prayers?