The Antichristian Phenomenon

The Aristotelian causa efficiens for this article were two recent news articles about two epidemics. A mumps outbreak in Chilliwack, Canada was traced back to a single case in a religious group that was opposed to vaccination. This outbreak has lead to mengingitis, deafness and concerns about sterility in a number of people.^[I]). The same infectious disease broke out in the Netherlands this year, which was the first in twenty years. Even though vaccination coverage for this and other diseases is 90-95% in the Netherlands overall, this outbreak took place in a geographic region with a high percentage of residents who are Christian reformed conservatives.^[II]).

Most reformed conservatives in the Netherlands live in a geographic location aptly called the Bible belt. It has a grim history concerning infectious disease outbreaks and epidemics. In events since the 1957 Dutch vaccination program took off there have been multiple cases of outbreaks in the bible belt, owing to the refusal to vaccinate of these Christian reformed conservatives. Especially in the last 15 years this group of Christians has been drawing attention and deserved criticism to itself. In 1992-1993 there was an outbreak of Polio in this region. In 1999-2000 there was a measles epidemic, which caused the death of three children. In the 2300 cases (of which 20% lead to serious medical complications)^[III]) almost all (97%) affected were not vaccinated because of their religious convictions – or in the case of children, because of their parents’ religious convictions. In 2004-2005, there was an outbreak of rubella. None of the affected were vaccinated, of which 90% because of religious reasons.

The religious reasons are rooted in the idea of “God’s providence” – The idea that every event is intended by God. In this line of reasoning, God will prevent you from getting infectious diseases if it fits his plan. If you do get affected, it must somehow be a necessary evil in God’s grand orchestration of ultimate benevolence. And so you have to ask yourself: Should parents have the freedom to put their child at risk when this is completely unnecessary? To me, this religious practice is no different than medical neglect. In the Netherlands, parents are free to choose not to vaccinate their children on the grounds of religious freedom. I always wonder what happened to the medical rights of the children. Should children’s rights make place for parents’ choices? I think not. It is not a matter of religious freedom because it’s possible harmful consequences are being imposed on others, on the weak and vulnerable – on exactly those who the government should protect.

And there is more to it. There are cases of medical neglect on much higher scales and in much higher political and religious spheres. I think the best known case is the Pope’s rejection of the use of condoms for Africa to stop the spread of HIV and Aids.^[IV]). Think about it: the most influential spiritual leader is opposed to an easy, comparatively cheap and proven method to prevent the human immunodeficiency virus spread in favour of methods that are unrealistic and plainly ineffective (i.e. “abstinence and fidelity”). This is no less than a condemnation to a horrific disease through authoritarian, religious blackmail.

Leaving the global scale, there are other cases of medical neglect. One of which is not so much because of religious opposition, but because of religious substitution. Instead of going to see a doctor, people are being subjected to a cross-carrying quack to undergo “faith healing” (I will only go into the religious forms of this, and not those of homeopathy and its likes). The worst and most despicable forms occur with televangelists. (e.g. Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff). Not only do these people claim to be able to heal the sick, they often earn ridiculous amounts of money through their work as charlatans. Another bad case of medical neglect through religious substitution presents itself as institutionalised to “Christian Science“. Christian Science adherents (“Christian Scientists”, not to be confused with “Christian scientists”!) will rely on the healing power of prayer as a first remedy in the case of illness. Like the case with creationism, they reduce the issue of medical care to a choice in a false dichotomy of modern healthcare versus their spiritual “treatment”. In the Christian Science frequently asked questions section, they justify the endangerment of their children because parents should have the right to choose for the spiritual treatment they themselves have found to be effective.^[V].

In the conclusion of this article I’d like to emphasize on the importance of this problem. Children are medically neglected (thus practically abused) by their religious parents because the law has allowed them to. do so under the moniker of religious freedom. We should not allow this to happen. Therefore,  as a first step, I am in favour of mandatory (government-funded) vaccination programs for children, regardless of parents’ religious beliefs. I encourage people to comment with ways to counteract the religious substitution of healthcare for children.

Footnotes

1. The Province, “Mumps outbreak traced to anti-vaccination religious group”, August 27, 2008 (link [↩]
2. Dutch vaccination institution, “Increased mumps incidence in the Netherlands”, July 3, 2008 (link [↩]
3. National Health Services, MMR The Facts – The Netherlands, (link [↩]
4. BBC News, “Pope rejects condoms for Africa”, June 10, 2005 (link [↩]
5. Propaganda video from Christian Science (link) [↩]