This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Oregon Senate Votes to End Faith-Healing Defense for Parents

Oregon Senate Votes to End Faith-Healing Defense for Parents - Comments

El Bastardo's Avatar Comment 1 by El Bastardo

Take a look at the picture of the poor child and wonder what the feck was wrong with the parents.

Thu, 26 May 2011 01:36:27 UTC | #630964

Hubriss's Avatar Comment 2 by Hubriss

I wonder what the reason and cause is for them believing in that sort of crap in America anyways. Are they just secluded from rational people?

I guess it's just people in perceptively authoritative positions being able to spew out anything that comes to mind and have their masses just take their word for it on faith.

Thu, 26 May 2011 02:01:31 UTC | #630970

defford's Avatar Comment 3 by defford

All in all, thank Reason that Oregon decided to make this move. It shows the "right" attitude and I'm proud that it is seen by representatives of their Senate.

Thu, 26 May 2011 02:26:19 UTC | #630976

pro_prodigy's Avatar Comment 4 by pro_prodigy

I'll forgive parents for trying anything when their kids receive a near hopeless prognosis (leukemia, ect), but only after they've exhausted all medical options. If chemo's not working, if experimental drugs aren't cutting it, sure, anoint your kid with oil, do some chants, sacrifice a goat to Zeus. It can't hurt and religion and superstition really is a bastion for desperation and comfort.

This? This is just...ugh. These parents shouldn't have been allowed to procreate in the first place.

Good on ya to Oregon though.

Thu, 26 May 2011 02:43:58 UTC | #630977

Random Jerk's Avatar Comment 5 by Random Jerk

25-5? Who are those 5 nutcases who voted against it. They need some serious faith healing for insanity.

Thu, 26 May 2011 03:15:32 UTC | #630980

RDfan's Avatar Comment 6 by RDfan

What a tangled web we weave when first we decided to give religious idiots a get out of jail free card!

Thu, 26 May 2011 03:41:46 UTC | #630983

Steve Hanson's Avatar Comment 7 by Steve Hanson

A vote that should have been unanimous having five dissenters. Pathetic as that is, at least the rest of the legislature managed to grow a pair and actually do the right thing here. No child should EVER be held hostage to the idiocy of their parents.

Thu, 26 May 2011 04:07:30 UTC | #630987

Sofa King Cool's Avatar Comment 8 by Sofa King Cool

I guess those five nutbars are anti-life. If any of them get sick let's see if they go to a doctor or if they put their hands together and are able to mumble their ills away. I am glad this happened. I would be even happier to see five new job openings in the coming days.

Thu, 26 May 2011 04:49:35 UTC | #630989

AndrewT's Avatar Comment 9 by AndrewT

"The church’s small cemetery, not far from the end of the Oregon Trail, has row after row of headstones marking children’s graves."

It is distressing how, when it comes to religious conviction, believers will ensure that their blinkers and their ear plugs are firmly in place! Regardless.

Thu, 26 May 2011 05:31:52 UTC | #630993

mmurray's Avatar Comment 10 by mmurray

Republican Fred Girod of Stayton spoke strongly against the bill, calling it “lousy policy.” He said it needed to be reviewed for the cost and impact on the budget.

Minimum penalties for certain cases considered murders would go from 120 to 300 months in prison and cost an additional $21.88 per day for a temporary prison bed, according to the fiscal impact report.

If the measure becomes law, it means a person could face the same level of punishment as “someone who goes into a liquor store and shoots someone in a robbery,” Girod said. “This is going to the extreme.”

Whereas shooting someone in a robbery is clearly worse than murdering your own children. Right.

When did Republicans start worrying about the cost of putting people in prison ?

Michael

Thu, 26 May 2011 05:43:51 UTC | #630994

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 11 by Stevehill

Just give up on this Constitutional freedom of religion bullshit. The Followers of Christ are a sick, evil, child-abusing cult and they should simply be banned.

Thu, 26 May 2011 06:48:48 UTC | #631001

SnaevarTor's Avatar Comment 12 by SnaevarTor

Good to see sense prevail once in a while. You can't pray away diseases, and it's terrible to see children have to pay the price for their parents' foolishness in this regard.

Comment 11 by Stevehill :

Just give up on this Constitutional freedom of religion bullshit. The Followers of Christ are a sick, evil, child-abusing cult and they should simply be banned.

Can't have that. We don't suspend the freedom to (and from) religion for the same reason that we don't suspend freedom of speech just because some berk is bellowing things that we don't like to hear: The freedom to speak one's mind, whatever the content of one's speech, is more important than altering the law in order to avoid having one's feelings hurt. If you start suspending civil rights simply because it's convenient or expedient, you risk sacrificing every hard-won victory towards gaining them in the first place.

The answer here is not to suspend basic civil liberties, but rather to put the children who are at risk of maltreatment due to "religious principles" in foster care, to get them away from the people who would subject them to a life of suffering due to their own ignorance. Sorry if that's not expedient enough for you, but what you are suggesting, whether seriously or merely out of momentary frustration, is irresponsible, short-sighted and dangerous.

Thu, 26 May 2011 08:14:20 UTC | #631016

C.Wood's Avatar Comment 13 by C.Wood

Got to agree with SnaevarTor on this one. Suspending religious freedom would only make matters worse.

Let's try to to what we can without sacrificing civic liberties.

Way to go, Oregon! Glad to see there's still a shred of humanism in this world :)

Thu, 26 May 2011 08:34:19 UTC | #631021

SimonG's Avatar Comment 14 by SimonG

This reminds me of a conversation i had on a bus a few months ago with a trauma surgeon. She recounted several cases where she was treating jehovas witnesses who had been in major accidents and on several occasions had to let a person she could save die because they (or their relatives) would not allow a life saving blood transfusion. It really is a sad state when beleif in a non existand god leads people to actions that result in either their deaths or the deaths of a loved one when medical intervention could lead to everyone involved going home to family. Its good to see that at least one state has come to its senses.

Thu, 26 May 2011 08:42:01 UTC | #631025

paul686s's Avatar Comment 15 by paul686s

Totally agree with SnaevarTor, hate what these people stand for and can't for the life of me understand how they think. But freedom to hold beliefs or views that may be seen as strange to others is a right, we just have to balance this against the rights of the child. Clearly these people are not fit to care for the child and so legal steps should be taken to protect the child.

Thu, 26 May 2011 08:48:28 UTC | #631026

TheRationalizer's Avatar Comment 16 by TheRationalizer

My friends are Christians, both of them (a married couple) have cancer. They have faith that the expert cancer doctors are their best bet for survival. Beyond that if they wish to believe that their loving god is responsible for her living beyond the diagnosis of her doctors that's up to them, but at least they accept that trust in medicine is more appropriate than faith in Jesus.

Thu, 26 May 2011 09:00:43 UTC | #631029

Peter White's Avatar Comment 17 by Peter White

So now we have a crime, not giving a certain treatment for a certain disease, that couldn't have existed only a short time ago. Prior to the existence of the treatment for the disease, nobody would have considered making it a crime to not give the treatment. But now that the treatment exists, it's a crime not to provide it.

Thu, 26 May 2011 09:39:44 UTC | #631040

Rich Wiltshir's Avatar Comment 18 by Rich Wiltshir

"The 25-5 vote..." It's brilliant that reason's winning through, but who are the five numbskulls?

Thu, 26 May 2011 09:46:59 UTC | #631042

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 19 by Stevehill

It is a requirement of this "religion" to neglect a child in distress. Who cares about the additional distress this might cause to parents torn between helping their child and following their faith's requirements.

At what point should society intervene? What if a religion decides to cut off all childrens' little fingers at age three to propitiate the gods? Or for that matter what if it demands female genital mutilation? What if the religion demands the right to hold open air Satanism services in the public park opposite the primary school? What if they deify Hitler and start saying he might have had a point about Jews? (Sorry, Godwin)

Is there no point at which a society can, and should, say this is intolerable and stop it?

It does not take a genius to subvert the freedom of "religion" available to cover up an essentially criminal enterprise funded by exploiting vulnerable people. Are those people not entitled to expect their governments to protect them from such exploitation.

OK, I'll spell it out: is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrong about freedom of religion? I suggest that to qualify as a "religion" within the meaning of the UDHR is must be demonstrable that the religion causes not harm. Otherwise, it's a cult (say). Entitled to no tax exemptions. And capable of being criminalised if the harm is espouses is demonstrably significant.

Any person, at any time, may apply to court to show harm (whether to himself or anyone else) and seek an order that the status as a religion be revoked.

Thu, 26 May 2011 09:48:32 UTC | #631043

beau53's Avatar Comment 20 by beau53

I thoroughly support this move but what about all the children (and adults) murdered by the medical and other science professions?

Thu, 26 May 2011 09:50:08 UTC | #631044

sandman67's Avatar Comment 21 by sandman67

Is there no point at which a society can, and should, say this is intolerable and stop it?

In the minds of our US cousins Steve the answer is always no. Theres no point trying to reason with them...they just dont get it.

You can spend an hour drawing direct lines between allowing WBC to spew its anti gay hatred, echoed by Republicans and groups with Family in their name, and the deaths and bullyings of gay people and kids, and in some cases their suicides..... but free speech matters more, no matter how venomous it is.

Draw similar lines between Beck, Limbaugh and the Faux Nooz liars and demagogues, and attacks on ACORN, TIDES and private citizens, threats against politicians, etc etc.....but free speech matters more, no matter how venomous it is.

Draw more lines between allowing some crazed hate filled so called preacher to burn another religions holy books, knowing full well what the intention is (to cause a kick off somewhere else), and 20 citizens of OTHER countries ending up dead.....but free speech matters more, no matter how venomous it is.

Y see Americans are full of fear and distrust of any form of authority, and so think that regulating extreme behaviour through reasonable expression laws like we have here in the UK is akin to Big Brother and will mean stormtroopers kicking down their doors at night blah blah blah.

Forget it....they will never see the light, and will happily continue with the insanity. Its the same as trying to reason with them about gun ownership laws. A waste of time.

I just sit back and watch their country stew in a cesspit of theocratic poison and division, see their kids increasingly come all back o the bus in education standards, snigger at the fact that 60% of them believe in fairy tales rather than facts, and live in hope that someday they will wake up from that Dream and start living in the real world of reason.

Thu, 26 May 2011 10:06:58 UTC | #631050

ajs261's Avatar Comment 22 by ajs261

The US is a fascinating country. It is simultaneously one of the most backwards and freethinking of all the Western countries.

Thu, 26 May 2011 10:11:02 UTC | #631051

RDfan's Avatar Comment 23 by RDfan

Comment 20 by beau53:

I thoroughly support this move but what about all the children (and adults) murdered by the medical and other science professions?

Really? Care to give any examples. Whilst you're at it, you may want to define what you mean by "murdered" and "children".

Thu, 26 May 2011 10:12:09 UTC | #631052

sandman67's Avatar Comment 24 by sandman67

Just a note for comparitors..... here is what we do to Evangelical swine who kill their kids in the UK.

We lock them up for life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Victoria_Climbi%C3%A9

I thoroughly support this move but what about all the children (and adults) murdered by the medical and other science professions?

Now lets see....are we talking abortions, or shall we hit the Godwin Button because you are gonna cite

M M M M Mengele!!!!!

Thu, 26 May 2011 10:16:06 UTC | #631053

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 25 by Vorlund

Once you are daft enough to accept the proposition that god is infallible and can do anything if you have faith then the rest is just science.

This is one of the most detestable attributes of religious belief. People who choose to suffer and die without reason are sad enough but to inflict this on one without voice or means to choose is antihuman. They may as well be conducting their own brand of surgery.

Thu, 26 May 2011 10:22:48 UTC | #631055

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 26 by Stafford Gordon

And about time too!!!

Thu, 26 May 2011 10:23:22 UTC | #631056

C.Wood's Avatar Comment 27 by C.Wood

Comment 17 by Peter White :

So now we have a crime, not giving a certain treatment for a certain disease, that couldn't have existed only a short time ago. Prior to the existence of the treatment for the disease, nobody would have considered making it a crime to not give the treatment. But now that the treatment exists, it's a crime not to provide it.

Not just the treatment. It's a crime not to take proper care of your children. Seeing a doctor is the bare minimum. If nothing can be done, nothing can be done. But at least go see a doctor.

Thu, 26 May 2011 10:34:22 UTC | #631060

C.Wood's Avatar Comment 28 by C.Wood

Comment 20 by beau53 :

I thoroughly support this move but what about all the children (and adults) murdered by the medical and other science professions?

If it wasn't some sort of accident, sue them. Isn't that what happens all the time? What exactly is the point your trying to make?...

Thu, 26 May 2011 10:36:17 UTC | #631061

AsylumWarden's Avatar Comment 29 by AsylumWarden

Excellent step in the right direction, now we just need two more: The power to intervene and force parents to ensure their kids have appropriate medical care, but more importantly, the power to make these Faith 'Healers' accountable for their actions.

Thu, 26 May 2011 10:42:34 UTC | #631065

dandelion fluff's Avatar Comment 30 by dandelion fluff

Comment 19 by Stevehill

At what point should society intervene?

At least let's start by subjecting religious rights and freedoms to the fist-and-nose standard, which would mean that people are free to live their own lives according to whatever faith they wish, but are not allowed to injure anyone else with them. And take it seriously.

Then children like these would be equally protected by child-abuse laws, it would automatically be illegal for a sharia court to impose a sentence on an unwilling person, and laws like DOMA would be out.

Thu, 26 May 2011 10:54:51 UTC | #631070