|
Faith-Healing Trial Opens In Oregon City
Oregon Live | Submitted by: anonymous
"The Worthingtons, members of an Oregon City church that believes in spiritual healing, are charged with criminal neglect and second-degree manslaughter. Their daughter died at home March 2, 2008, of pneumonia and a blood infection... The Worthington case will be the first time anyone in Oregon has been prosecuted under a 1999 law passed in response to an extraordinary number of child deaths involving their church, the Followers of Christ. The law eliminated religion as a defense in most cases of medical neglect.
|
From: guitarded [Jimi Vaughan]
Date: 1-Jul-2009 13:15
 Who did her nose job, Karl Malden?
From: gargoyle1
Date: 1-Jul-2009 13:23
Faith healing works wonders. Once they've died of the medical condition, they're just fine, right? Fucking idiots should be sterilized with a spork then imprisoned for eternity
From: studgerbil
[Stud]
Date: 1-Jul-2009 13:25
Peoples Republic of Oregon strikes again. Oregon is all for civil liberties if you are gay, but if you believe in God, you are shit outta luck. I cannot wait for GD to defend this law.
From: rev [meupnpopmyclutch]
Date: 1-Jul-2009 13:38
Darwin took care of that one but let's do a snip job on both parents just to make sure they don't breed again.
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 1-Jul-2009 16:33
None of the State's business. So long as we have "under God" in the pledge and let the Clergy mouth off and apply pressure on every subject from abortion to gay marriage, I see no reason why those two people should be even be indicted. They did not just stand by and do nothing, they prayed, and I'm sure with all their heart. If the Law holds prayer in such contempt (I don't), then why all the hypocritical crap like swearing on the Bible? More goddamn intervention from the Government in peoples' lives.
From: jaybegood
[Sir Robin of D'Hood]
Date: 1-Jul-2009 17:00
"So long as we have "under God" in the pledge" Could you please explain to me WHAT God that is? As I understand it Christians have a God Muslims have a God Buddhist have a god For that matter, all god's chilluns, even the pgymies in Africa, as far as I can see seem to have a God of some type, name and description. Even Satan's a God to some! No to mention Michael Jackson's developing deity, but, in the pledge, I see no specific reference to a PARTICULAR God, therefore leaving up to the individual reciting it to insert (my) before the word. So what's the Goddamn problem people? Can we just move on now, and legalize underage porn?
From: pundit [likeIsaid pundit]
Date: 1-Jul-2009 18:17
I get this, this urge to . . . . CRACK THEM OVER THE FCUKING HEAD with a baseball bat whenever this faith healing crap pops up every 6 months.
From: studgerbil
[Stud]
Date: 1-Jul-2009 18:19
Sure I do, GD. You are all in favor of government intervention to "protect" YOUR lifestyle, but all against it when it comes to the lifestyles of those you differ with. Marriage is a government institution, with a license and a contract and rules and regulations and so forth. Marriage is no different than driving a car. The government regulates it. SO when gays want to get married it is up to the government to approve of it and permit it, period. Otherwise, it is simply two people living together. You are all in favor of government intevention when you believe it protects your rights, and to hell with anyone who disagrees with ya.
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 1-Jul-2009 18:22
Of course, Jay, how silly of me. I'm sure that Rev Docherty, the Knights of Columbus, and Rep. Oakman, had Zeus, Allah, Vishnu, and OngoBongo in mind when, after pestering the legislature about it for several years, they finally twisted the arm of Ike to get "under God" signed into law.
From: skorch
[Skorch]
Date: 1-Jul-2009 18:45
From: proudpedophile [sex b4 8, or it's 2 L8] Date: 1-Jul-2009 13:54 "The law eliminated religion as a defense in most cases of medical neglect." They would have done more good if they passed a law that eliminated religion. ******************************** They would have done more good if they passed a law that required pedophiles to be tossed in an industrial plastic shredder. Soon...right after the next major economic collapse...soon...
From: other [unclassified]
Date: 1-Jul-2009 21:18
They'll just pray..the verdict comes out how they want.
From: inthebeginning [(It Was Real Good)]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 03:52
Most here seem concerned with religious rights of the faithful, except for those obviously antireligious. What remains to be mentioned is the rights of children subject under the law to assignment and surrender of certain rights to the parents. Put yourself in the child's place, trusting absolutely in the "wisdom" of his parents. Your life is in danger by a medical condition that can usually be handled with a good outcome by current medical techniques. Your parents make the decision for you to risk your life on their personal beliefs in a philosophy that is still unproved after thousands of years. It's your life but your parent's decision. Who's right? A good analogy to use would be that of the moral imperative in killing in self-defense of another. When you see another's life in danger, it's the right thing to do to attempt to save that life by any means possible including your own action in killing an aggressor. Oregon has taken a measured response in the issue of religious rights versus the individual right to refuse or accept medical treatment. They've passed a law that says you can't use religious belief as an excuse to evade responsibility if your child dies as a result of you applying your religious beliefs. You can still deny your child medical treatment because of your religious beliefs, but if that child dies because of that denial, then you must accept criminal responsibility for your decision. As a child, I would be terrified to learn that my parents could kill me by denying medical treatment and get off scot-free by insisting on their rights to belief. Society has a stringent obligation to protect the rights and life of those who cannot protect themselves, anything else would be an inhumane nightmare.
From: cuntslutwhore [fubar55]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 08:04
Fucking religious MORONS! If you call this government intervention, you are also a MORON! I have spoken - Gerbil is a MORON! 55 Times!
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 10:00
There is nothing wrong with dieing. Nor is there anything wrong with allowing someone to die. Why is it OK to kill them before they're born, but not let them die of natural causes, afterward? At least they tried. There is no way this law should be able to survive court scrutiny.
From: groundnpound [Ghillie Sinclair]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 11:53
One less orogoonian and counting...
From: jaybegood
[Sir Robin of D'Hood]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 12:50
From: absintheredux [Green Death] Date: 1-Jul-2009 18:22 " Of course, Jay, how silly of me. I'm sure that Rev Docherty, the Knights of Columbus, and Rep. Oakman, had Zeus, Allah, Vishnu, and OngoBongo in mind when, after pestering the legislature about it for several years, they finally twisted the arm of Ike to get "under God" signed into law." ++++++ You're quite right THEY wanted it to say, "One nation under Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, Father son and Holy Ghost" But Ike was too smart for that! He had it say God. An all inclusive terminology that can mean whatever YOU want it to mean. Personally I'm with the Spaghetti thingie.
From: sugartits [It's all the fault of the Jews]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 13:16
I think that whatever God says should be legal if you believe in it! Only a total asshole would put a child's welfare over the welfare of the churches! Aulduron, GD and Gerbil are totally right! Way to go! Liberals suck.
From: joemama [Joe Mama]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 13:50
I think these dumbasses are stupid. Automatic Darwin award for the kid. Obviously, if there were a god, then why did he let the child die? Why is it that these so-called faith healers never answer that question? Oh yeah, I forgot, it was God's will. Well I'll take medical science over faith any day.
From: cyran0 [de Ballsac]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 14:34
The term "faith" is absurd but the term "faith healing" is even absurder. The term "belief system" belittles credulity & nails the phenomenon right on the head. The typical adherent to a belief system was suckered into it by the mechanism of his/her own intrapsychic need. "Why is it OK to kill them before they're born, but not let them die of natural causes, afterward?" Auldy, that sounds like an argument for euthanasia for the elderly. "At least they tried." I agree, death is not an evil. But the parents tried what? Their belief system. It didn't work. The courts had seen it happen before. Time to put a stop to it.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 15:22
...Auldy, that sounds like an argument for euthanasia for the elderly.... Nothing wrong with euthanasia, as long as it's voluntary. ...But the parents tried what?... They tried giving birth to a kid that will live. That's at least one step further than a parent who has an abortion, and one step fewer than a parent who treats a sick kid. What's the difference between dieing in the first trimester, or the 7th?
From: cyran0 [de Ballsac]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 15:47
"What's the difference between dieing in the first trimester, or the 7th?" Naught. But you're trying to conflate an abortion with a kid that was however-many-years old, the parents let it die for their "faith," & I'm not going along with you there.
From: sugartits [It's all the fault of the Jews]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 15:47
Yes, if you can kill a baby in the third trimester then you should be able to kill someone in ANY trimester? See how stupid that argument is? I agree with Aulduron, and Ann Coulter and Jesus, abortion is WRONG! Liberals would be worth listening to if they had a brain! They want to get rid of the death penalty but they still want to keep abortions! It makes more sense to kill someone after they are born because then they got to have their life! Let God sort out who lives and who dies! That is why we have freedom of religions!
From: cyran0 [de Ballsac]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 16:06
Sugar, It's tough to tell if you're being sarcastic or not. The "let God sort it out" argument appeals to me, though, as aburdism at its finest.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 16:14
...But you're trying to conflate an abortion with a kid that was however-many-years old... They're both examples of death, as is assisted suicide.. Who cares about any of them? Let them die. The world is better off without them. There is no evidence that this child suffered any more than she would have, had she been cured. ... the parents let it die for their "faith," & I'm not going along with you there.... Because you seem to have some kind of bias against the word faith. Had the untreated-for-whatever-reason child of atheists died, would you want those parents charged? ...I agree with Aulduron... ...abortion is WRONG!... Abortion may be wrong, but that's no reason to pass laws against it, when it's voluntary.
From: sugartits [It's all the fault of the Jews]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 16:24
What is aburdism? Do you mean absurdism? I think that the government shouldn't have child welfare laws because then the church has to uphold them, but it is really GOD who decides when we die! If the liberals have their way then you could kill your child anytime but I am PRO LIFE and think that God should only make those decisions! That is why I am so happy to have my little baby who is the best thing that ever happened to me!
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 16:53
One belief system believes it's OK to kill unborn babies. Another belief system believes it's OK to not treat an illness. Both belief systems end up with the same conclusion: death. Why is one belief system more or less valid than the other?
From: retardedmonkey
[ISeeYouWhenYouSleep]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 18:27
From: sugartits [It's all the fault of the Jews] Date: 2-Jul-2009 15:47 Yes, if you can kill a baby in the third trimester then you should be able to kill someone in ANY trimester? See how stupid that argument is? I agree with Aulduron, and Ann Coulter and Jesus, abortion is WRONG! Liberals would be worth listening to if they had a brain! They want to get rid of the death penalty but they still want to keep abortions! It makes more sense to kill someone after they are born because then they got to have their life! Let God sort out who lives and who dies! That is why we have freedom of religions! *** You are attempting to obscure the point. Do me a favor and find someone who self identifies as "pro-abortion". You are going to have a hard time because the language in play is pro-choice or anti-abortion. That said, let us move on down the line a bit further. You make the statement that liberals want to maintain the choice of abortion and ban the death penalty. Okay, fair enough. However you fail to grasp that "liberal" and "conservative" are relativistic valuation systems which are also not mutually inclusive nor exclusive of political party affiliation. To further deflate your argument is the fact that these terms are also not mutually inclusive nor exclusive of each other. I self identify as a Democratic party member who is socially progressive liberal, fiscally conservative and a regressive liberal on external policy matters. I am hawkish on global economics and a dove on environmental issues but would not consider myself to be "green" in the more modern and evolving sense. I have respect for Goldwater's views on governmental intrusion and spending but I also embrace Kennedy's dream of a society driven to do better for the sake of being better then themselves. I find Eisenhower's blind optimism and foolhardy hand washing of responsibility for the very same military industrial complex he decried, I find it very distasteful but likewise bear some understanding of the situation that spawned it. I applaud Nixon's desire to take up the mantle of a cleaner & healthier America but find that the Cesearesque methods he employed to be staggeringly fucked up. All this boils do to the naivety you clearly demonstrate by saying that liberal -gasp every last one of them- are gathering for baby killing parties while also grouping up to stop the death penalty. The converse of this is that by wielding your same brush we come to the fact that conservatives want to outlaw every form of abortion in every situation and yet somehow this it is just fucking fine and dandy to hand out he death penalty like Halloween candy. So tell my, who is more hypocritical? Is it wrong to kill them now or later? If you kill them early you will never know who's the serial rapist and how will be the poet laureate. However if you wait to kill them, bad shit will happen and millions will be wasted to detect, track, bring to trial, house, appeal and finally act out punishment of these criminals. So are we then saying that the scales of justice balance the lives of babies against money?
From: cyran0 [de Ballsac]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 19:50
"What is aburdism? Do you mean absurdism?" Indeed. Hoisted on my own pedantic petard am I for having left a letter out of a word. Your God is the embodiment of absurdism & that's what I love about 'im. % % % % % % % % 1. Flush a zygote down the potty; or 2. Let an extant little girl go without treatment. The two events are different somehow. Y/N
From: skorch
[Skorch]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 19:58
You can't stop people from killing their children...the Supreme Court decided so... ...hell, in this country we don't really even try to stop people from killing other people's children...we barely punish child-murderers.
From: hippityhopp
[bunny meat is good!]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 20:28
The Worthingtons, members of an Oregon City church that believes in spiritual healing, are charged with criminal neglect and second-degree manslaughter. Their daughter died at home March 2, 2008, of pneumonia and a blood infection... **** Okay, so a fair test of their faith would be pretty easy if you ask me. Jab each of them in several arteries with an icepick, and if they run to a hospital for treatment they are full of shit. Lock em up. But if they sit still and pray for God to heal their afflictions despite the massive blood loss, I say send em home with our apologies. If they live, that is....
From: sugartits [It's all the fault of the Jews]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 20:52
Retarded monkey, I think you make some good points, but ultimately society can't save every child and if they actually cared they wouldn't allow kids to grow up in ghettos or be raised by shit-for-brains parents! That doesn't mean that killing the kid off in the womb is the best answer either. Serial rapists have come from good families and Nobel laureates from abject poverty! To come charging in and force parents to go against long held religious beliefs is an abrogation of rights even if the rest of society thinks the religious view is ridiculous! Sorry but I don't believe in the nanny state! Sorry, but that is a *liberal* creation and is a slippery slope towards a loss of rights in how to raise your own children! And in response to the Darwin comment earlier in the thread, if this is such a bad religion then let their church bear the cost of raising damaged children or having dead children from being afraid of doctors! Maybe it will thin the herd!
From: oidvous
[No Shame]
Date: 2-Jul-2009 23:22
I don't see any reason the law would be struck down in court. In our country people under 18 have only one right, the right to a safe and non-abusive environment in which they're raised (or thereabouts). They don't have freedom to make their own decisions. If they want to go out and play and mommy says no, they don't have the freedom to defy her. This is why DFS can intervene in a family when there is abuse, because the child's right is being violated. Adults have the freedom to make their own decisions and noone is trying to assert that adults shouldn't have the freedom to defy treatment. Religious freedom is important but it can only go so far. As someone famous said, 'Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.' If I came up with a religion where I believe that God wants me to kill as many people as I can, should I be allowed to freely practice my religion? If someone tried to stop me would they be committing religious persecution? Dying of a terminal illness is not a quick and painless thing, especially with no painkillers. Months or years of what could, in this case, be called torture. An analogy could be made to starvation - your child needs food to be healthy and survive and a religion could say that you can't feed your child for some reason. You can argue that abortion is cruel to the child as well. But noone's trying to say that abortion causes long-term suffering for the child. Personally I believe abortions should be legal through the 71st trimester, but only humanely, and that euthanasia should be legal, hell there should be a tax credit for it.
From: rev [meupnpopmyclutch]
Date: 3-Jul-2009 01:29
From: jaybegood [Sir Robin of D'Hood] "So long as we have "under God" in the pledge" Could you please explain to me WHAT God that is? As I understand it Christians have a God Muslims have a God Buddhist have a god For that matter, all god's chilluns, even the pgymies in Africa, as far as I can see seem to have a God of some type, name and description. Even Satan's a God to some! No to mention Michael Jackson's developing deity, but, in the pledge, I see no specific reference to a PARTICULAR God, therefore leaving up to the individual reciting it to insert (my) before the word. --------- Jaybe, Actually I don't think the Bhudists don't claim a god as such and you didn't even mention the mega-fissured-singularity the Hindus put forth [makes Xian 'three-gods-is-One' seem so childishly simple]. That Capitalized God is not just any old pixie, nixie, dryad, or sprite but rather He is THE copyrighted Big Kahuna, Great Spirit, the Numero Uno who is exclusive to Bible-thumpers. Said B-t's are the ones always forcing their brand of mumbo jumbo onto an unwilling [but lazy and chicken-shit] majority. That constant thumping [thump, thump, thumpity, thump] is how they got 'under God' slipped into the Pledge back in '56. The majority knew it was both wrong and meaningless but hoped it would shut them up. Of course that was a mistake. It only encouraged them and gave them another club to beat the brains out of America. If these morons truly believed they'd quit their jobs and let the Lord provide food and shelter for themselves and their ever-growing litters. Many of them only go part way and let Him provide for the healing. It's only fair, He did provide the diseases [Praise Be!]. Their kids mostly live. Mostly.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 3-Jul-2009 10:21
Everyone suffer from the terminal illness called life. It is the source of ALL pain and ALL suffering. Death is the only cure.
From: boraxo [Bo Raxo]
Date: 3-Jul-2009 10:41
Why, there's God in the pledge of allegiance. And isn't the Pledge of Allegiance the supreme law of the land? So you have to respect my religion. Now my religion requires me to slowly torture people to death, to randomly shoot guns from moving cars (it's my second amendment right!), while ingesting large amounts of hallucinogenic substances. But its my religion, so you have to let me do whatever fuckwit thing I want. Or is it, I can do whatever I want, as long the victims are my own children? Yeah, that's it. I get to sit and watch my kids writhe in pain and die horribly from something we learned to cure decades ago, just because my imaginary friend told me so. See, when the supreme Pledge says "and justice for all", it didn't include the children.
From: skorch
[Skorch]
Date: 3-Jul-2009 11:11
Now, you can't go picking and choosing who's rights we will respect and who's rights we will violate... The Supreme Court decided that telling a woman she can't kill her unborn child violated her 4th amendment rights...the right to be secure in her person, papers, & effects against unreasonable search & seizure (don't ask me how it applies, I have no idea). Therefore it would seem the lives of all offspring have to be subject to the parent's whims, if you're going to respect the right of equal protection under the law. So kill away...slaughter & slaughter & slaughter, fill those dumpsters with little corpses 'till you're finally glutted with it all...nothing really matters, does it?
From: boraxo [Bo Raxo]
Date: 3-Jul-2009 11:33
Fetus. Person. Not. The. Same. That's how it works in the first two trimesters. Third trimester: life of the mother is in danger. So it is, essentially, self-defense. Bonus points: people who are against abortion seem to think letting a child suffer and die from an easily treated condition is OK. What. The. Fuck???
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 3-Jul-2009 18:44
...And isn't the Pledge of Allegiance the supreme law of the land?.... No. What makes you think that? ...See, when the supreme Pledge says "and justice for all", it didn't include the children.... Of course not. In the past, it didn't even apply to women and slaves. ...Fetus. Person. Not. The. Same.... The only difference is age.
From: conculcate
[Matt Gies]
Date: 3-Jul-2009 19:30
Actually Skorch, Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of the Constitution's "penumbra" of implicit rights, one of these being the "right to privacy". The 4th Amendment isn't the linchpin per se. Not that I expect rational discussions of constitutional law on this board, anyway...
From: rev [meupnpopmyclutch]
Date: 4-Jul-2009 02:55
Fetus [part of the mother] UNTIL Birth THEN Person [with some rights but now property of the state] UNTIL Adulthood [with more rights but still property of the state] UNTIL Death The state does not normally interfere with the natural death of persons unless that person is a bloated incompetent corporation - GM, for instance [You don't think YOU are property of the state? Check your draft card or passport]
From: walabio [Ŭalabio‽]
Date: 5-Jul-2009 20:27
¡Give them the chair! They believe that their voodoo can heal. They believe without evidence. That is stupid. Anything accepted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. We cannot control what people do in their heads, but when they commit negligent homicide, we can do something.
Updated: 5-Jul-2009 20:28
| 
