Blown Wide Open - Praying For The Sick Part 2
Well it was inevitable that the wide media coverage of this story would blow a hole wide open and reveal similar stories that have been covered up in the past. Debunking Christianity found just a few of these stories, the most recent reporting that the accused parental murderers will be facing prosecution for the manslaughter of their 15 month old daughter who died in March this year.
This report uncovered the fundamentalis church “Followers of Christ”, which has a long history of toturing and murdering children. The church practices faith healing, but goes further than most churches by shunning those who go against church doctrine, a crime which includes seeking medical help. It’s a simple but deadly scare tactic: Go to a doctor…go to hell.
What really sickens me about these people is this part of the article:
During the latter part of the twentieth century, the church began to attract attention from authorities in the state of Oregon due to an unusally-high mortality rate among its children. Larry Lewman, a former medical examiner in the state alleges that during a ten-year period, twenty-five children perished due to lack of medical intervention–a death rate 26 times higher than the general population; an investigation by The Oregonian claimed that 21 out of 78 minors found to be buried in the church cemetary died of preventable causes, including simple infections which would be easily treated with routine antibiotics.
25 children and indeed more over the history of the church have been routinely tortured and executed by loving ignorant parents who are so deluded they think 1 out of 1000 miraculous healings is evidence of divine intervention. Then again, this is the same thinking from the people who visit Lourdes seeking a miracle which has only appeared just over 60 times in the entire long history of the place.
Luckily, this time it seems Oregon have placed measurements in the law to make sure these people cannot get away with it. They will be charged and go to prison for their crimes, and hopefully America might be on the verge to waking up.
I’d like to finish by echoing a statement made by Evan over at Debunking Christianity:
Please, someone, tell me how prayer for the sick is good and righteous. Please, I can’t understand how that can be when I keep seeing all these dead kids.
Possibly Related Posts:
Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read!
Follow me on Twitter!
Loading ...
A cynic would point out that with this strategy the Followers of Christ will not make it to round 2 of the Darwin Competition.
But yes, this is plain sickening.
Joost Canters
1 Apr 08 at 10:36 am (GMT)
The fifteen month old child died of Pneumonia. An illness I myself have had numerous times in my life, and even though my parents were Catholic, they still made damn sure I got the medication I needed.
This just proves how irrational some people with religious beliefs can be, and it sickens me and angers me.
We have the knowledge to treat these illnesses and diseases, we need to use it.
Ryan Ashbrook
1 Apr 08 at 11:56 pm (GMT)
Ad hominem
You surprise me Adrian. You need to think deeply and honestly about why this story bothers you. I guess you also reject Peter Singer’s atheistic ethics? He indicates that it is the parents right /just duty to kill their sickly children for the good of Society and its resources.
I know that you are in the U.K, you may not have heard the story in the US a few years ago about a battle over a disabled woman named Terri Sheivo. It was the religious people who fought to allow her to live with her parents. The opposition took an Atheistic perspective of freeing up “resources” by killing her.
Yes, these parents are terribly wrong when it comes to faith and medicine.
ed
2 Apr 08 at 4:46 pm (GMT)
ed,
Atheistic ethics? There is no such thing. Atheism is a belief that there is no God, and that is all. You can’t have ethics based on atheism because there is nothing there to base it on. I’m not saying ethics based on Christianity or indeed theism is correct, I’m just saying that you can’t base it on a non existent belief system. Peter Singer’s ethics are his own view, and if people subscribe to that then that’s their choice, However, it’s not based on atheism, it’s based on a harsh form of eugenics, something entirely different.
The Terri Schiavo case was widely reported in the UK, so I am aware somewhat of it. The opposition once again took a harsh eugenical view on the case, not an atheistic one. This lady was disabled, and had nothing to offer society so she had no “value” in such a society. Now, I’m not saying I subscribe to such ethics, I don’t, I’m saying that you can’t use someone’s religious beliefs to label their ethical ones.
If you want my ethical views on cases similar to Terri Schiavo, they are simple. If the person has no hope of recovery, and is reduced to an essentially non existent life, then there is no reason for the state to support that life. If the family want to come up with the money to continue treatment and care, that is their prerogative, and I have no argument against it.
If however the person is destined for a life of continual pain and suffering and are unaware of the world around them (mentally speaking) then that person should have their life ended. There is no reason for any person to go through such suffering. I don’t think the family should have any say in the order of things, as they would be doing more harm to the person to keep her alive than to allow her to die.
In the third case, where the person is very much aware or the world, and in an insufferable amount of pain, then there is no reason why the state or anyone should oppose them if they wish to be allowed to die. I am fully in favour of both passive and active forms of euthanasia, but obviously with strict conditions applied to the passive kind (see above).
I believe I am right in saying that in the case of Terri Schiavo, the patient was unaware of the world around them. According to Wikipedia she suffered from PVS (persistent vegetative state) which backs up my point. In terms of my personal ethics then, I would have expected the state to not support that life, and for it to be up to the family to provide the support financially for her to be kept alive.
Adrian Hayter
2 Apr 08 at 9:02 pm (GMT)
“Atheistic ethics? There is no such thing.”
Thank you, your honor I rest my case.
Peter Singer’s wiki states “He specializes in practical ethics, approaching ethical issues from a preference utilitarian and atheistic perspective.”
Utilitarian and atheistic perspective, aren’t those view common to yours? Utilitarian, meaning morality from society.
“I’m saying that you can’t use someone’s religious beliefs to label their ethical ones.”
Isn’t that exactly what you are doing with this post?
ed
3 Apr 08 at 2:57 am (GMT)
Atheistic ethics and “approaching ethics from an atheistic perspective” are completely different things and I expected someone of your intelligence to understand that. The first implies that atheism leads to certain ethics, whereas the second implies that ethics can be deduced and argued from a stance without a God in it.
In both cases, (Utilitarian and atheistic) these perspectives are very common to my own, but as I stated above, myself and Mr Singer disagree on a few ethical points.
“Isn’t that exactly what you are doing with this post?”
Not at all. I’m not saying that every single person who believes in faith healing is sick and twisted and likes to torture and murder children. I am well aware that the vast majority of people try faith healing alongside traditional medical assistance. What I am doing is saying that this family (and a few others) have gone too far, and have put their religious beliefs above anything else offered to them.
Adrian Hayter
3 Apr 08 at 9:59 am (GMT)
I will never understand why people claim ethics aren’t possible without religion.
What the hell did people do before the Ten Commandments were magically inscribed on those fabled stone tablets - run around like crazed madmen, raping and pillaging and killing every child in sight??!
Daniel Holter
3 Apr 08 at 4:02 pm (GMT)
Daniel,
Exactly the point I made in my “hypothesis” concerning democratic morality. Although I am the first to admit that my hypothesis only has basic scientific arguments in it, and I have no evidence but history itself, I think I make the point clearly that a world without morality would be evil running wild. History dictates that is not the case, and was never the case. One only has to look at our genetic brothers, the apes, to see that morality is already present in the animal kingdom.
Adrian Hayter
3 Apr 08 at 6:35 pm (GMT)
Does anyone know the ratio of hospitals FUNDED by Christians/Catholics Church around the world compared to hospitals FUNDED by Atheists?
hg
4 Apr 08 at 5:42 pm (GMT)
Well since atheists don’t have an official organisation we can’t make a fair and just comparison. However, we can make a comparison between the percentage of atheists who fund hospitals compared to the percentage of Christians who fund hospitals. The results would likely be the same. Please get it into your head that atheists are not immoral beings, and we have the same cares and considerations as you do.
Trying to discredit atheists by saying that the Catholic church spends more on hospitals on them is an unfair argument, as it is widely known that the Catholic church has much more money that any single atheist, and probably a lot of atheists combined. Being an atheist doesn’t mean we don’t donate money to people who need it, so please cast aside your delusion.
Your accusation is exactly the same as saying that Bill Gates is a better person than me because he donates more money to charities than I do. It is a ridiculous accusation since Bill Gates has much more money than I do and can therefore donate more. Our views on donating money are probably the same, and if I suddenly became as rich as he is, there is no reason why I wouldn’t donate the same amounts.
Adrian Hayter
4 Apr 08 at 5:58 pm (GMT)
@hg re: hospital funding
1. I’d simply call that good a PR/recruitment program.
2. they have to spend their obscene fortunes on SOMETHING.
3. Scientology funds tons of drug and alcohol recovery programs. Good on them… doesn’t mean their beliefs are valid in the least.
4. anonymity is lame.
Daniel Holter
4 Apr 08 at 6:08 pm (GMT)
I’ll pray for you, that’s all I can do.
The rest is up to you.
Thozman
6 May 08 at 11:44 pm (GMT)
[...] less than 3 months ago I reported on the arrest and presecution of the parents of Ava Worthington, a 15 month old girl who died because instead of taking their daughter to a doctor, they left her [...]
Another killed by religion | The Atheist Blogger
20 Jun 08 at 1:01 pm (GMT)