Religion & American Law

In Tennessee v. Crank, Jacqueline Crank was convicted of child neglect and sentenced to one year of probation.  Crank, a member of the Universal Life Church, relied solely on prayer to heal the cancer that was killing her 15-year-old daughter.  There is a state law that prohibits parents from failing to provide medical for children.  When her daughter died, Crank claimed she was protected by Tennessee's spiritual treatment statute which covers anyone who "provides treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone in accordance with the tenets or practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof in lieu of medical or surgical treatment."  

However, the trial court concluded that her church was not a “recognized church or religious denomination”.  Crank relied on Ariel Ben Sherman, another member of her church group, as the daughter's "spiritual father".  Sherman was an accredited member of the Universal Life Church, which will accredit anyone who fills out an application.  The Department of Child Services described the church as a “cult-like” atmosphere with about 30 members living under one roof.  In fact, Sherman was caught seeking out medical attention for the cancer he had, which ultimately ended his life, as well.

Crank then claimed that Tennessee’s spiritual treatment statute was unconstitutional because it was naming some prayer as legitimate and some as criminal.  The Court of Appeals stated that they did not need to answer that question because striking down the law would collapse her initial argument. 

Her final claim was that this statute violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.  

The Supreme Court of Tennessee stood by the trial court and the court of appeals in rejecting Crank's appeal.  The majority stated that the statute was intended for "established institutions with doctrines or customs that authorized healers within the church to perform spiritual treatment via prayer in lieu of medical treatment."  Clearly, they did not recognize the Universal Life Church as an established institution and they did not recognize Sherman as an authorized healer, considering he went back on their beliefs himself.

I agree with the narrow ruling in this case because I believe any other ruling would be unrealistic.  Ultimately, I would like to live in a world where the health of all children comes first and people trust modern science.  A great deal of evidence over the years has shown us that modern medicine is usually a safer bet than prayer when it comes to cancer and various other illnesses.  However, I also understand that many people hold strong religious beliefs, values and traditions that they wouldn’t be ready to give up on overnight.  Therefore, I am okay with this Tennessee law as long as it is referring to recognized institutions.  Striking down the law entirely would bring a whole mess of religious lawsuits into court for people who use spiritual healing.  On the other hand, if the state didn’t regulate which prayer was legitimate and which prayer is criminal it would create a slippery slope for any child abuser to claim spiritual healing.  Although Sherman was technically qualified by filling out the application, he breached his beliefs when seeking medical attention for his cancer.  This proves some invalidity within the Universal Life Church and degrades its establishment as a recognized institution. 

Justice Stewart’s interpretation of Abington Township v. Schempp can justify the decision in this case.  The Establishment clause was created in an effort to restrict the national government from imposing any particular religion on the country.  However, states are free to establish any religious values they would like. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Tennessee has the right to determine which prayer is legitimate and which is criminal in this case.