Oregon House unanimously votes to end faith healing exception

[cleanhippie]

Oregon House unanimously votes to end faith healing exception
Published: Thursday, March 10, 2011, 12:44 PM Updated: Thursday, March 10, 2011, 1:47 PM
Ryan Kost, The Oregonian By Ryan Kost, The Oregonian

The Oregon House approved a bill Thursday that would remove legal protection for parents who choose faith healing over medical intervention when treating their children.

--snip--

The legislation comes in response to an Oregon City church, the Followers of Christ, that has a long history of child deaths even though the conditions from which the children died were medically treatable.

Currently, spiritual treatment can be used as a defense against all homicide charges. The bill would eliminate that defense and subject parents who chose faith healing over medical treatment at the expense of their child's life to mandatory sentencing under Measure 11.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/03/bill_ending_faith_healing_exce.html

-----------------------------

Yeah! Science and Reason win over superstition, AND children are protected. Wins for all!

[speltwon]

1. Good ruling imo. I am all for very extensive religious freedom

for example, I agree with the case law that exempts Amish from having their kids attend any high school whatsoever (it was a well argued case), and etc.

But the children here are defenseless and until they are old enough to make medical decisions themselves, the state needs to protect them

[laconicsax]

2. K&R

Fantastic news!

[hifiguy]

3. About time

That such a thing was ever allowed is a profound absurdity. No other form of child abuse is legal.

[bbgrunt]

4. I'm not in favor of forcing everyone into the pill-pushing,

disjointed, insurance run system that has taken over our so called health care system.

[cleanhippie]

5. Fine, but that is not what this is about.

Its about ensuring children get actual science-based medical help and not superstition, and nothing more. No need to try and make more of it.

[bbgrunt]

6. beware the law of unintended consequences. nt

[cleanhippie]

9. uh, ok, I will.

Not really sure what you are fearful of here, but whatever.

[laconicsax]

10. I don't think you understand what's being targeted here.

Faith-healing is no longer a valid defense in homicide cases. This isn't about pushing people into "pill popping," it's about pushing people like Jeff and Marci Beagley to actually doing something to save the life of their child. It's about pushing parents to call 911 when their child is lying unconscious on the floor and not breathing rather than just holding hands and praying.

It should tell you something when an anti-faith healing bill is supported by the Christian Science Church.

[humblebum]

7. This is a very good and wise ruling that is solely designed to protect

children's lives.

[cleanhippie]

8. It brings joy to my heart that you are in agreement, without caveat.

:toast:

[humblebum]

11. When doctors have done everything they can, it's time to start

praying for a miracle. Not that it isn't ok while treatment is going on. But, to deny a child needed medical care is abuse. St. Luke was a doctor. If faith healing was a tenet of Christianity, then there wouldn't be Catholic, and Lutheran, and Jewish, etc. hospitals.

[laconicsax]

12. *cough*

http://christianscience.com/

Matthew 19:19-20
Matthew 21:22
James 5:14-15
Mark 16:18

Oh, and why should the tenets of Christianity affect whether there are Jewish hospitals?

[cleanhippie]

13. Aw, come on! Cut him some slack, its the best he can do.

Considering the circumstances, its a damned breakthrough!

[humblebum]

15. Nevertheless, the fact that there are hundreds of religious affiliated

health institutions speaks for itself. That doesn't equate to a lack of belief in the value of prayer nor healing. "Physician heal thyself"

[laconicsax]

17. Yes, it does speak for itself. Namely the de facto atheism of many believers.

Christian scripture teaches that prayer, accompanied by sincere faith in God will heal someone of whatever ails them.

Relying on medicine rather than prayer demonstrates a disbelief in the intercessory Christian god.

[humblebum]

18. That's not not what my bible says. Many time in Scripture healing and help

were prayed for and not received although the faithful were praying in earnest. God at times says no. Paul and his "thorn in the side" is one example.

"Relying on medicine rather than prayer demonstrates a disbelief in the intercessory Christian god." In no way is that a true statement of the entirety of Christian faith or teaching. The very fact that physicians, who helped people of faith, are even mentioned indicates that medical help was sought out by believers. You are purposely spreading bunk about Christianity to reinforce your anti-religious biases. One of the major distinctions of Christianity is that different people have different functions or talents in life and that each one is a part of the body of Christ. A doctor is one of those parts.

[laconicsax]

19. You must have missed my earlier response:

These folks seem to think that prayer is all that's needed: http://christianscience.com /

These passages speak of healing through prayer--pray and you will be healed.

Matthew 17:19-20
Matthew 21:22
James 5:14-15
Mark 16:18

The first passage I cited also addresses why the Christian god might not heal someone--they don't don't believe: "Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

That line is red in some Bibles...Jesus seems to think that only those who won't benefit from prayer-mediated healing are those who don't believe (i.e. atheists).

[humblebum]

20. First of Christians are not automatons. And yes I do believe that God

is involved in healings. But you are purposely ignoring other parts of Scripture that clearly show that early Christians used the services of physicians. I am well aware of everything you are quoting. And nowhere is there any qualification of who is or is not healed by divine intervention - believer or not. That does not exclude human intervention. And in red line bibles, all of Jesus's words are in red. Christianity teaches that God is sovereign - meaning that He can intervene regardless of the actions of any believer or non-believer, and also that with Him all things are possible.

[laconicsax]

21. Isn't consulting a physician second-guessing the dictatorship's plan for you?

If you're sick, pray for a cure, and nothing happens, isn't it logical to assume that your being sick is part of the celestial tripartite dictator's plan for you? By what right do you presume to second-guess your sovereign?

[humblebum]

22. I think that you are letting that anti-religious attitude cloud your ability

to hold a meaningful exchange. Good night.

[laconicsax]

24. It's not my problem if you can't be bothered...

to be honest about the nature of the relationship between you and your god.

Really--if you can't come to terms with the fact that your professed Sovereign is held as an unquestioned lawgiver whose will reigns supreme (i.e. a dictator), I'm not the impediment to a "meaningful exchange."

Frankly, I'm surprised that you spend so much effort trying to paint atheism as a religion of violent totalitarianism, when your own religion holds as ideal a totalitarian state with all who oppose the dictator suffering an eternity of torture...then again, it's not too surprising.

[humblebum]

26. spend so much "effort trying to paint atheism as a religion of violent totalitarianism"

Huh? Now your anti-religious rants are becoming too obvious. The thing that I see very clearly is that you cannot accept another's ideas as being contrary to your own. I have no problem with the idea of a sovereign God. He is what he is. You and I both have a choice whether or not to believe. There really is no compulsion and just because you cannot accept what I say does not mean that it is not true. Where you see contradiction, I see confirmation. I have no problem with your criticism of religion. That's healthy. But I think you could well spend your time more enjoyably, and productively, by not spreading so much hate for another group with whom you disagree.

[cleanhippie]

30. Holy crap! "Where you see contradiction, I see confirmation".

Yeah, ok. :nuke:

[laconicsax]

34. So when you repeatedly blame atheism for the abuses of totalitarian regimes...

What do you call that?

I'm genuinely interested in what you think you're doing on this forum.

As for rants, I wasn't aware that a solitary paragraph counted as a rant, nor was I aware that directly responding to statements made in a comment counts as a rant.

Also, your "sovereign" hands down laws concerning every aspect of his followers lives up to and including what thoughts are allowable. Punishment for any transgression against these laws comes in the form of eternal torture to commence after death. This isn't a matter of interpretation, but a matter of what the tenets of the religion as presented in its holy book actually say. To point this out is hardly "anti-religion" nor is noting that the "sovereign" in this scenario acts as a totalitarian dictator.

[darkstar3]

23. See how it avoids logical contradictions by accusing others of blindness.

I think there must be a playbook or something.

[laconicsax]

25. Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see it with both eyes wide?

[humblebum]

27. When your logic out of your playbook only extends

no farther than that which can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt to the touch, then I am not surprised at your understanding or lack of it.

[cleanhippie]

31. Here is your logic, in your own words.."Where you see contradiction, I see confirmation"

Actually, you HAVE no logic at all.

[humblebum]

32. You too are using that logic. Logical empiricism is NOT the only

epistemological position that can be taken.

[darkstar3]

35. We already burned that straw man.

[humblebum]

36. I will quote laconicsax when he said it so well,

"Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see it with both eyes wide?" I have have already shown that there is more to reasoning than you care to see or acknowledge. Your POV is terribly limited. And you are using your strawman default again to avoid the truth.

[darkstar3]

37. Now that's comedy.

First you quote satire, then you confuse reasoning and belief, and then you close with an incredibly poor defense (through repetition) of your chosen straw man.

[humblebum]

38. And you are still avoiding the facts.nt

[humblebum]

41. So, darkstar. Don't you think that it's pretty difficult to "confuse

reasoning and belief?" A belief, or to be more specific - a justified true belief, is necessarily arrived at by using a type of reasoning, which employs a specific epistemology that defines the limitations of reasoning. You seem to be the one who is a bit confused here.

[laconicsax]

42. ROFLMAO!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[darkstar3]

43. ^^Thank you. That is the only appropriate response at the moment. nt

[humblebum]

44. One characteristic that is oh so common in your responses to difficult questions

is your tendency to use ridicule instead of sound reasoning. But, you are not alone in that behavior, as is quite evident.

[laconicsax]

46. WOOOSH!!!

Of course, the laughter can't possibly because of what you wrote. It must result from a character defect on our part.

[humblebum]

49. The use of ridicule over effective reasoning has also been

one of the major failings of organized atheism over time. That fact has done two things: kept it from gaining widespread acceptance and displayed the weaknesses of its methods of reason. If you have to rely on ridicule you've already lost the game.

[cleanhippie]

50. Hahahaha! As soon as you have effective reasoning, the ridicule will stop.

But you make it too easy, my man. Way too easy.

[laconicsax]

51. Umm...there's no such thing as "organized atheism."

It must be an interesting place, your mind. Organized atheism, benevolent totalitarianism, and STALIN!!! must make for quite the fertile ground for straw men.

[humblebum]

52. Well I'll take credit for the organized atheism, but the constant references to

"benevolent totalitarianism, and STALIN!!!" are pretty much your buzz words. Now I'm going to have to contact all those atheist organizations and tell them they don't exist. They will be distraught.

[laconicsax]

53. Benevolen totalitarianism usually goes by "Kingdom of Heaven" and one only need read your posts...

...to see constant references to Stalin.

I love how you admit to making something up in your subject line, then deny it in the message. The laughs keep coming with you.

[humblebum]

54. Many times I have been accused of constantly using Stalin as

an example of atheist extremism and of course he was. But I am always quick to point out that Stalin was only a piece of the story and when I talk about Stalin it is always, or close to always, in conjunction with Lenin, Marx, Mao, Hoxha, Ceaucescu, Trotsky, etc. So when you say that I am always crying Stalin!!!, it just ain't so. If you want to use the other names in conjunction with Stalin then I will admit to that. As far as your "benevolent totalitarianism" - that is your term and idea, not mine. Show me where I have ever used it. And yes, ridicule has always been a tactic of radical atheism throughout history. And intentional ridicule of another group is clearly bigotry. Ridicule is quite different from criticism, which I consider (criticism) to be quite healthy.

[laconicsax]

55. Demonstrably false.

Here's a bit of fun, let's see how many times you've previously mentioned the non-Stalin members of your list there, shall we? Using the Google box in the corner, one can find every time your username has appeared with your various boogeymen.

Ceaucescu: 34 results.
Hoxha: 122 results.
Pol Pot: 375 results.
Mao: 619 results
Lenin: 991 results.
Stalin: 3750 results.

Seems Stalin pops up with your username more often than your other boogeymen combined. So much for "always or close to always." Of course you'll probably respond with something like "where you see contradiction, I see confirmation" or some other illogical nonsense.

(I intentionally didn't search for Trotsky as there's another DUer with that username and the results would include every instance where both of you appeared in the same thread. Also, blaming Marx for the actions of totalitarian dictators is akin to blaming St. Paul for the Crusades.)

[humblebum]

56. Well now let's see. Combining all of the aforementioned not

counting Stalin comes to 2141. Now considering that I seldom if ever have mentioned any of those other guys individually without Stalin being mentioned, that changes your stats completely. And how many times was I defending myself against your accusations about Stalin that I would have used his name alone? Answer: many. And then there is Trotsky whom I have mentioned in conjunction with Stalin many times. Your numbers are misleading and bunk. List how many times I have mentioned Stalin alone or only once in the same posting. Then you'll have something. I don't ever recall any single posts on any one of those others besides Stalin. And considering that I have only 1537 posts TOTAL leads me to wonder about your screwball antics altogether. What a loon.

BTW "where you see contradiction, I see confirmation."

[laconicsax]

57. Considering that you once said, "Stalin was not a Russian," I'll defer to your expertise on lunacy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=255432&mesg_id=256067

[humblebum]

58. Um? Stalin was a Georgian.

"where you see contradiction, I see confirmation"

[laconicsax]

59. Georgia was just part of Russia when Stalin was born.

But why not? Obama isn't American, he's Hawaiian.

Up is down, black is white, right?

[humblebum]

60. No, Georgia was not part of Russia. It was a separate nation

and a protectorate of the Russian Empire. By your reasoning, Gandhi would have been English and Cubans would have been Americans.

[laconicsax]

61. Uh huh, and I guess he didn't have any association with Russia either, right?

Like, say, living there for most of his adult life? Born in a province of the Russian empire, lived in Russia, died in Russia...yeah, someone with that description certainly isn't Russian :eyes:

Of course, since you seem to prefer "up is down" reasoning, I guess that I've only confirmed that he wasn't Russian by any stretch of the imagination.

[humblebum]

62. Georgia was NOT a province of Russia. It was no more a part

of Russia than the Philippines was part of the United States before its independence. And who ever said he had nothing to do with Russia? The Soviet Union was not Russia alone. Yes, he was a Soviet. So were the Georgians and many others.

[laconicsax]

63. You should check your information.

Look up the Tiflis Governorate. You might find that it was a province of the Russian Empire, and included the town of Gori.

Born in a Russian province, lived in Russia, died in Russia.

Where I see fiction, you see fact?

[humblebum]

64. And I would suggest that you check your information. At no time

was Georgia considered a province of Russia. Russia took certain provinces of Georgia as the spoils of war and Georgia was an administrative protectorate and of the Russian EMPIRE. Georgia has, and had, its own provinces and its own unique culture. But never was the entire country considered to be Russia. There is a huge difference between being Russian and part of the Russian Empire. Russians are offended by that and Georgians are offended by that also. If Georgia was Russia then Poland was Russia.

[laconicsax]

65. Are American embassies also not American territory?

Someone born in he town of Gori in 1879 would have been born in a Russian province. The whole of Georgia need not have been part of Russia for this to be true.

[humblebum]

66. Well, what do ya know? Maybe Gandhi could have been the King of England? Just WOW! nt

[laconicsax]

68. *yawn*

[cleanhippie]

48. Nice! Yet ANOTHER reason you are not on ignore! I would have MISSED this!

Wow.

[laconicsax]

39. BWAHAHAHAHA!

Poe's law FTW!

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

40. See, its posts JUST LIKE THIS that is the reason I don't have you on ignore. I would have MISSED it!

Its comedy GOLD. GOLD I tell you!

[cleanhippie]

29. Come on, man, you are bringing up those uncomfortable questions and will make him

have to do those mental twists and back flips required to rationalize the answer. You are just being mean! :evilgrin:

[cleanhippie]

28. You do realize that "physicians" of the "early Christian" era were not MEDICAL doctors

like we have today, right?

[humblebum]

33. How could they have been medical doctors like we have today,

when they did not possess the scientific knowledge we possess today? But in the context of the times they were indeed physicians who were concerned with care and healing. I would imagine that today's medicine will look quite primitive to doctors a century from now.

[GSanon]

69. They probably used Pharmakya (usually translated "witchcraft" in kjv) nt

[dimbear]

16. Like it or not, Christianity has radically reorganized Judaism.

Everybody knows Judaism is the mother's milk of Christianity. Far fewer understand how much Judaism has received/been inflicted back.

It was because of the threat of Christianity that the Hebrew canon was closed. It was because of the threat of Christmas that Hanukkah become more than a footnote. Even the Hebrew Bible owes its numbering of chapter and verse to the Christians. The hospitals aren't at all out of the bounds of credibility. I don't happen to know which church or synagogue started the first clerical hospital, but my guess would be....a church.

For a similar case, consider the influence of the tenets of Pepsi One on the tenets of Coke Zero or vice versa.

[Vehl]

14. Good! K&R , nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

45. In most of the cases I remember reading about

the parents were Christian Scientist or right wing fundie, and the child had juvenile diabetes. Easily treatable.

Or sometimes epilepsy or asthma.

[laconicsax]

47. Or a simple urinary blockage.

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2010/02/beagley_verdict_comes_in_from.html

As is typical in these cases, the kid was obviously seriously ill for a long time and the parents did nothing.

[Deep13]

67. OH has such an exception on the books.

Practice whatever religious activities you want, but leave the children alone. They can't decide and are stuck relying on adults for protection. Don't kill them with irrationality before they can make up their own minds.