Letting children die isn't a valid religious belief

It's a warm Oregon day, but I'm still frosted over a jury deciding that child sacrifice in the name of Jesus deserves no more than a legal slap on the hand: the father was found guilty of criminal mistreatment, a misdemeanor; the mother got off entirely.

Over on my Church of the Churchless blog, I said "Child sacrifice gets a yellow light in Oregon." That post has generated a lot of comments, many of which mystify me.

Disturbingly, they seem to reflect the misguided sentiments of the jurors who voted to absolve Carl and Raylene Worthington of the most serious charges. Believing that hurting someone is right doesn't make it so, not under our laws.

Today I responded to a commenter who, like the jury, argued that people should be free to believe whatever they want.

Phil, interesting legal theory you set forth -- which, thankfully, isn't accepted in cases of child abuse, spouse abuse, and such.My wife was a psychotherapist in private practice for many years.

She encountered quite a few men, usually Christian, who believed that it was fine to beat their wife or children because, gosh, God has decreed that the man is the head of the family, and whatever he feels Jesus/God wants him to do, that's the best for everyone.

So I assume that if someone is a meth addict, and believes it is OK to not take their child to the doctor when seriously ill, because there's just no point and doctors don't know shit anyway, you feel this is a reason to absolve them of legal guilt?

What's the difference, as an Oregonian columnist pointed out, between someone high on deluded religious beliefs and someone high on a pharmaceutical?

If I'm ever stopped for speeding, I'll try telling the policeman, "I'm innocent because I didn't believe I was going that fast," or "I believed it was fine to go 90 on this stretch of road."

I'm up with the sort of moral relativism you espouse when breaking laws doesn't hurt other people. But when it puts innocents in danger, as in this case, they have to be protected from an attitude of "Hey, everyone is entitled to believe what they want to."

The jury members had a tough job. However, they should have stuck with the law, rather than their emotions.

The Oregonian newspaper reported that the jurors' empathy led them to a "epiphany": the Worthington's didn't take Ava, their 15 month-old daughter, to the hospital because they thought she was getting better.

There's two problems with this: (1) Oregon law doesn't require intent to be a factor in determining whether someone is guilty of manslaughter, a fact the jurors ignored. (2) Ava's grandfather testified that under no circumstances would the family seek medical care, because their bizarre religious belief is that Jesus heals, not doctors.

I'm pleased to see that one juror now is saying he wishes he could change his vote, since he didn't know about the other deaths of children in the faith-healing church. Unfortunately, it's too late. But not too late to save the lives of other children.

Oregon needs to toughen its laws in this area. And religious fundamentalists need to learn that their right to believe as they wish ends when acting on a belief harms someone else. 

Comments

[Walker]

As Robert Frost once said, a liberal is someone who is afraid to take his own side in an argument. People who style themselves as progressives/liberals but who are quick to apologize for/excuse the killing of children by withholding medical care make me crazy.

There's no real difference between killing your kid by denying care for treatable conditions and killing them by denying them some essential nutrition -- the only difference is the speed of death.

We don't tolerate people who would mutilate their daughter's genitalia (female circumcision) just because they were following the dictates and customs of their culture. Yet we're happy to tolerate these killers because they do it in the name of their own twisted, sick culture, masquerading as "religion."

[Brian]

Walker, I heartily agree. I'm not sure, though, whether more progressives or conservatives are making apologies for the Worthingtons.

My suspicion -- which is just that -- is that right-wing Christians are most likely to say, "Government shouldn't stick their noses in the lives of religious believers, no matter what they believe. God's law trumps man's law."

[Rain]

Sometimes children need to be protected from their parents. Sad but true and religion is no excuse. There is NOTHING in the Bible that denies medical treatment. As you brought up in your other blog, if these people really believed god took care of everything, they'd have mounted no defense and left it all in god's hands. They were hypocrites. Unfortunately people who beat a child to death are never treated as seriously in the court of law as someone who murdered a full adult. That is just plain wrong.

[Wayne]

Why is it that spanking your child can land you in court for child abuse or worse,and yet, Parents who are neglectful of their child's health to the point of the child dying can be excused because of a personal belief?

[Dan]

I'm not really sure I can appreciate an athiest telling me what is or is not a valid religious belief.

Don't get me wrong...the thought of letting a child die or denying them competent care is abhorrent. Most reasonable people would agree. But I try not to judge people's religious beliefs, although I do not have to approve of the outcomes.

What of those religions long ago that required sacrifices of humans and animals? Were those "valid" religious beliefs?

As you are an athiest, I question if you have the credibility on this issue to label it as simply a valid or invalid "religious" belief.

Or is it a matter of all pigs being equal...but some are more equal than others?

[Brian]

Dan, it doesn't seem like we disagree on the most important point: letting a child die because the parents believe Jesus heals rather than doctors is wrong, criminal, and can't be allowed by society.

That's an example of an invalid religious belief: one which harms other people who don't share that belief. (Children are under the protection of their parents, especially when 15 months old, so can't choose to forego medical treatment on their own.)

So apparently we agree that someone religious isn't allowed to inflict this particular belief on others. That's what I meant by "invalid" in the title of this post. I said that letting children die is an invalid religious belief. If someone wants to let themselves die, that's their right.

Legally, competent adults can refuse medical treatment. Adults also can choose to believe in creationism, if they like. Or the Easter Bunny. But they don't have the right to inflict their beliefs on others, such as by having creationism rather than evolution taught in public schools.

So for me (and many others) the dividing line between a valid and invalid religious belief is whether other people are unduly harmed by actions that flow from the belief. In Ava's case, she died as a result of a religious belief, so I feel absolutely justified in calling that belief "invalid."

[Nw]

Followers of Christ have a cemetery full of dead children. As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that workin' for ya".